The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board's decision in this matter is proper; a determination that necessarily requires a finding of whether Respondent is liable, in two separate instances, for payment of a civil penalty for commission of the infraction of interstate operation of a commercial motor vehicle without first obtaining a fuel use permit.
Findings Of Fact On November 18, 1990, Respondent was driving on Interstate Highway 95 (I-95) in a three axle truck powered by motor fuel. He stopped the vehicle at Petitioner's weigh station located on I-95 near Yulee, Florida. Petitioner's station law enforcement personnel observed that there was no fuel tax identification on the truck and no temporary fuel tax permit. Respondent was assessed a civil penalty by weigh station law enforcement personnel of $50 as a result of Respondent's failure to comply with the State of Florida's fuel tax registration requirements. He was also issued a 10 day temporary fuel tax permit for a fee of $45 to enable the vehicle to proceed from the weigh station. On December 4, 1990, Respondent was again driving on Interstate Highway 95 (I-95) in the same three axle truck. Again, he stopped the vehicle at Petitioner's weigh station located on I-95 near Yulee, Florida. Petitioner's station law enforcement personnel again observed that there was no fuel tax identification on the truck and no temporary fuel tax permit. Respondent informed station personnel that an application for the appropriate permit had been made, but offered no documentation to support this claim. Respondent was assessed another civil penalty by weigh station law enforcement personnel of $50 as a result of this second failure to comply with the State of Florida's fuel tax registration requirements. He issued a second 10 day temporary fuel tax permit for a fee of $45 to enable the vehicle to proceed from the weigh station. Respondent requested that the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board review the civil penalty assessment. Subsequently, the Board met on May 9, 1991, and reviewed the civil penalty assessed against Respondent on each occasion. The Board determined that a refund of the penalties paid by Respondent was not appropriate. By written request filed with Petitioner on June 10, 1991, Respondent requested a formal hearing regarding the propriety of the penalties assessed against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered confirming the imposition of two civil penalties of $50 each upon Respondent and affirming Respondent's two payments of $45 for the two fuel use permits received in conjunction with the assessment of the civil penalties. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS 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 16th day of October, 1991. Copies furnished: Jay O. Barber, Esq. Department Of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Kenneth R. Koozer 5469 Riverbluff Circle Sarasota, FL 34231 General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by Todd P. Resavage, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby Filed April 17, 2014 10:51 AM Division of Administrative Hearings ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED this \ \p day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, °. Florida. Julie er, Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight 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 | ( fa) day of April, 2014. 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. JB/jde Copies furnished: R. Craig Spickard, Esquire Kurkin Brandes, LLP 800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, Florida 32303 cspickard@kb-attorneys.com Andrew Archer Warth, Esquire Neal & Harwell, PLC 150 Fourth Avenue North Nashville, Tennessee 37219 awarth@nealharwell.com Todd P. Resavage 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 SCHUMACHER AUTO GROUP, INC., d/b/a SCHUMACHER BUICK GMC, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 13-4575 GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Respondent. / ese ORDER CLOSING FILE AND RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION This cause having come before the undersigned on Petitioner's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice, filed April 11, 2014, and the undersigned being fully advised, it is, therefore, ORDERED that the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings is closed with prejudice. Jurisdiction is relinquished to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Art TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 11th day of April, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, MS 61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) R. Craig Spickard, Esquire Kurkin Brandes, LLP Suite 1B 800 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (eServed) General Motors, LLC General Motors Audit Services 300 Renaissance Center Mc 482 C18 B76 . Detroit, Michigan 48265 Andrew Archer Warth, Attorney Neal & Harwell, PLC 150 Fourth Avenue North Nashville, Tennessee 37219 (eServed) STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SCHUMACHER AUTO GROUP, INC., d/b/a SCHUMACHER BUICK GMC, Petitioner, vs. Case No.: 13-4575 GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Respondent. nn NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL LA eee Petitioner, Schumacher Auto Group, Inc., d/b/a Schumacher Buick GMC, files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and hereby dismisses with prejudice the “Petition Pursuant to Section 320.699(1), Florida Statutes, Requesting Proceeding and Administrative Hearing” filed in this matter on November 14, 2013. DATED this 11th day of April, 2014. s/ R. Craig Spickard R. Craig Spickard Kurkin Forehand Brandes LLP 105 West 5th Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32303 (850) 391-5060 Fax (850) 391-2645 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via email on April 11, 2014 to i) Andrew Warth (awarth@nealharwell.com), Neal & Harwell, PLC and ii) Jennifer Clark (jenniferclark@flhsmv.gov), Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. s/ R. Craig Spickard
The Issue The primary issues for determination are whether Respondent committed a myriad of violations of Section 320.27, Florida Statutes, which provides certain requirements applicable to motor vehicle dealers. The violations alleged to have been committed by Respondent are inclusive of failures to display a consumer sales window form, to keep certain records of purchases and sales, to keep proper records of temporary tags, and not possessing required proper proof of ownership of two vehicles. In the event that Respondent committed these violations, an additional issue is 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-13051. Petitioner issued the license based upon an application signed by Sudarshan Kuthiala, as President. Respondent's address of record is 5895 St. Augustine Road, Suite No. 8, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Respondent's president is Sudarshan Kuthiala. On or about March 12, 2004, Petitioner's compliance examiner conducted an annual records inspection of Respondent's dealership. The purpose of that inspection was to determine whether the dealership was complying with statutory and rule requirements. Arrangements to conduct the inspection were made at least a week ahead of time. At the time of the March 12, 2004 inspection, the compliance examiner found that Respondent did not have the "Buyer's Guide" required by federal law and known as a “consumer sales window form,” properly displayed on a vehicle, a 1995 Nissan, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 1N6SD16S25C386012, being offered for sale by Respondent. Also, during the March 12, 2004 inspection, the compliance examiner reviewed five purchases and sales of motor vehicles made by Respondent. The examiner discovered that records of two of the vehicles involved did not contain any documentation of the method or proof of purchase or the required odometer disclosure statement at time of acquisition. Another of the vehicles did not have the odometer disclosure statement upon its disposition. An examination during the March 12, 2004 inspection of Respondent's temporary tag log found that the log was incomplete. Respondent's temporary tag log did not include the name and address of the person to whom a temporary tag for a vehicle had been assigned. A follow-up inspection of Respondent's dealership was conducted on June 23, 2004. An appointment for that inspection was made at least one week ahead of time. In the course of that June 23, 2004 inspection, Petitioner's examiner discovered Respondent did not display the required "Buyer's Guide" or “consumer sales window form” required by federal law on a 1992 Mercury automobile with VIN 1MEPM6043NH616615, being offered by Respondent for sale. Further, Respondent's records did not contain the odometer disclosure statement of that vehicle when it was acquired. Additionally, Respondent did not have a title or other proof of ownership of the 1992 Mercury automobile. During the June 23, 2004 inspection, Petitioner's examiner also discovered that records of three purchases and sales of motor vehicles made by Respondent were deficient. Records for two of the vehicles did not have the method or proof of purchase or odometer disclosure statement upon acquisition. Records for one of the vehicles did not have the required odometer disclosure statement upon disposition of the vehicle. The June 23, 2004 inspection also revealed that Respondent's temporary tag log was incomplete. The log did not reveal the name and address of a person to whom a temporary tag was issued or the vehicle identification number of the vehicle for which the temporary tag was issued. Following both of the inspections recounted above, neither Sudarshan Kuthiala nor anyone else on behalf of Respondent offered to provide the missing records or account for them. In the course of attendance at training school for dealers, Sudarshan Kuthiala was informed of the required forms and the process for their preparation. Also, Respondent's records have been inspected in the past and recordkeeping requirements further explained to Kuthiala.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent’s license. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 18th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sudarshan K. Kuthiala 2961 Bernice Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Fred O. Dickinson, III, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Kenneth Pratt, operates a trucking firm under the name of K and P Trucking. The firm's address is P. O. Box 2306, Platte City, Missouri. When operating a commercial motor vehicle (truck) on the roads and highways of this state, Pratt is subject to the weight and load limitations and vehicle registration requirements prescribed in Chapter 316, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered and enforced by petitioner, Department of Transportation (DOT). On October 31, 1991, respondent's truck was stopped by a DOT weight and safety officer for a routine inspection at the weight scales on Interstate 75 near White Springs, Florida. The total gross weight of the truck was found to be 77,780 pounds, consisting of 11,460 pounds on the steering axle, 32,600 pounds on the drive tandum and 33,720 pounds on the rear tandem. During the inspection, the officer discovered that respondent's international registration plan (IRP) temporary operational permit had expired three days earlier, or on October 28, 1991. A valid permit is required to be affixed to the truck as a prerequisite to legally operating on the roads and highways of this state. When a truck is operating without a valid IRP, the vehicle is authorized to carry a total gross load, including the weight of the vehicle, of only 35,000 pounds.1/ For any pound in excess of that weight, DOT is authorized to impose a fine of five cents for each excessive pound. Therefore, respondent was fined $2,139, or five cents times 42,780 pounds. After respondent's appeal to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board was denied, this proceeding ensued. Respondent does not deny that his truck was operating with an expired IRP on October 31, 1991, and that the vehicle had a gross load of 77,780 pounds. However, he points out that in September 1991 he traded in a used truck on a newer model with a truck dealer known as Midwest Kenworth. During the course of that transaction, the dealer accidentally destroyed the base plate and cab card which prevented their transfer to the new vehicle. Because of this, respondent obtained a temporary permit from the Missouri Highway Reciprocity Commission (Commission) which expired on October 28, 1991. At the same time, he ordered a "supplement" to replace the destroyed cab card and base plate. However, in order to secure the new card and plate, it was necessary to file an affidavit with the Commission. Respondent failed to do this when he filed his application and the application was eventually rejected. By the time an affidavit was prepared, the appropriate fees paid, and the new card and plate issued by the Commission on November 1, 1991, the temporary IRP had expired some three days earlier, or on October 28, 1991. The truck which was stopped by DOT on October 31, 1991, was based in Covington, Georgia, when the temporary permit expired on October 28. According to respondent, he did not know that the driver intended to travel to Florida on October 31, 1991, without first obtaining a valid permit. However, respondent made no effort on or after October 28 to communicate with the driver and advise him not to proceed until the new permit was obtained, and Pratt says he was unaware that a second temporary permit to operate in Florida could be obtained by contacting the Motor Carrier Services Bureau of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles before his vehicle entered the state. Respondent concedes that the delay in obtaining a new permit was his own fault but he asks that he be given leniency due to these extenuating circumstances. However, there is no statutory authority nor DOT policy which would authorize DOT to waive a fine under these conditions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by petitioner imposing a fine of $2,139 on respondent for violating Subsection 316.545(2)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of June, 1992.
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
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Dixie-Southern Constructors, is in the construction business. In connection with its construction business, it operates a 1979 Ford. The Respondent generally registered the vehicle with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) through the Bartow tag agency. When it operated the vehicle as a van, the Respondent declared a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 22,000 pounds. During the early part of 1989, the Respondent converted the vehicle to a haul truck and, on or about May 16, 1989, changed the vehicle's registration to reflect the conversion and to declare a GVW of 43,099 pounds. The change increased the registration fee for the vehicle by approximately $75 for the last seven months of 1989. For reasons not explained by the evidence, the Respondent made this change through the Lakeland tag agency. Also for reasons not explained by the evidence, the Respondent replaced the vehicle's tag. In the normal course of business, the Lakeland tag agency would have reported the May 16, 1989, change to the DHSMV, either through "on-line" computer entries, or by sending the DHSMV a computer tape of transactions undertaken by the tag agency while "off-line." The report would have included the new license tag number, the new GVW and the new vehicle type. This new information would have been included in the registration renewal reminder sent to the Respondent by the DHSMV at the end of 1989. It was not proven that the renewal notice was not sent, as usual, or that it did not contain the correct GVW of 43,099 pounds. The evidence proved only that, instead of renewing, on January 22, 1990, the Respondent again purchased a new tag and registered the vehicle at a GVW of 22,000 pounds again. (The vehicle was registered as a truck, not as a van.) On January 31, 1991, the Respondent renewed the vehicle's registration, again at a GVW of 22,000 pounds. (This time the vehicle was registered as a van instead of as a haul truck.) On November 18, 1991, a DOT compliance officer stopped the Respondent's vehicle as it was being operated on State Road 60 headed east between Mulberry and Bartow. After inspecting the vehicle's registration certificate, the officer suspected that the vehicle exceeded its declared GVW and had the vehicle weighed. The scale indicated a GVW of 49,520. The officer assessed a $1,176.05 fine and impounded the vehicle. The Respondent paid the fine to regain possession of the vehicle. On November 20, 1991, the Respondent again purchased a new tag for the vehicle, declaring a GVW of 54,999 pounds and designating the vehicle as a haul truck. The registration fee for twelve months was $594.10, versus $194.10 for the prior registration, when the declared GVW was 22,000 pounds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order upholding the $1,176.05 fine it assessed against the Respondent in this case. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1992. Paul Sexton, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Doris M. Caves Controller Dixie-Southern Constructors Route 2, Box 78A Bowling Green, Florida 33834 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Elyse S. Kennedy Executive Secretary Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
