Findings Of Fact Petitioner V.S. is the managing director of Source of Light and Development, Inc., a non-profit corporation which operates "Hope House", a licensed emergency shelter home. The license is issued jointly to V.S. and to Hope House. There is no evidence that the Petitioner is the sole owner of the facility or the corporation. The evidence establishes that the shelter could continue to operate under the direction of another individual if V.S. were no longer responsible for the facility. At some point in 1991, Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS") received a report alleging that V.S. had been driving under the influence while a resident of Hope House was in the vehicle. Although the record is unclear as to what information was available to the agency at that time, (the Hope House resident allegedly in the vehicle operated by V.S. refused to offer a statement) the DHRS classified the report as proposed confirmed and advised V.S. that she could request that the classification be reviewed. On July 19, 1991, V.S. requested that a proposed confirmed report of abuse or neglect be expunged or amended. Thereafter, the matter was assigned to Michael J. Hally, an expunction analyst for the agency. Mr. Hally initially reviewed the statements of three law enforcement personnel taken at the time of the event. The law enforcement officials were apparently responding to a reported altercation at the Hope House. Hally then spoke to the law enforcement personnel who provided confirmation of their prior reports. Hally subsequently discussed the matter with the resident who essentially stated that V.S. had consumed alcohol and become intoxicated while operating a car in which the resident was riding. During this period of time, V.S., through legal counsel, attempted to identify and provide to Mr. Hally a number of persons who could provide exculpatory information on V.S.'s behalf. Mr. Hally interviewed the persons identified by counsel. Based upon the information available, the DHRS determined the report to be correctly classified. On August 20, 1991, the DHRS informed V.S. that her expunction request was denied and notified her of the right to challenge the agency's determination through the formal administrative hearing process. On September 25, 1991, V.S. requested a formal hearing to challenge the agency's refusal to expunge or amend the report. The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings which scheduled the matter for hearing. In preparation for formal hearing, the deposition of the resident was taken. Subsequently, the DHRS determined that the credibility of her testimony would be subject to attack. Based on the resident's lack of credibility, the DHRS, on February 4, 1992, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the sole proprietor of an unincorporated business engaged in the practice of psychology. Petitioner's business does not employ more than twenty-five (25) full-time employees and has a net worth not exceeding $2,000,000.00. Petitioner's residence, business domicile and principal office are located in Georgia. Petitioner's residence, business domicile and principal office have been so located since 1982. In DOAH Case No. 89-6811, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychologists, filed an Administrative Complaint, dated July 20, 1989. An Amended Administrative Complaint was filed on December 8, 1989. The Administrative Complaints alleged that the Petitioner was guilty of sexual misconduct in the practice of psychology. The case was voluntarily dismissed by the Department of Professional Regulation prior to the final hearing. The voluntary dismissal was adopted and incorporated into the Final Order entered by the Board in this matter. The Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs filed pursuant to Rule 221- 6.035, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, was timely, having been filed within sixty days (60) after the date on which the Petitioner had prevailed. According to the initial Affidavit filed by Petitioner's attorney, Petitioner initially incurred legal fees in the amount of $5,106.50 and costs in the amount of $210.05 in DOAH Case No. 89-6811. However, Petitioner is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs since the evidence clearly demonstrated that Petitioner's business or professional practice is neither domiciled in Florida nor has a principal office located in Florida. See, Section 57.111(1)(d)a., Florida Statutes.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to certification as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact Iris Reed and her husband, Mark Reed, own and operate a business known as Reed Landscaping, Inc., the Petitioner in this cause. Mrs. Reed is an American woman and owns 60 percent of the subject business. Her husband owns the remaining 40 percent. The Reeds previously owned a lawn maintenance business in New York but moved to Florida several years ago and started doing business as "Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance by Mark." Eventually, approximately 1992, "Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance by Mark" changed its name to Reed Landscaping, Inc. As to Petitioner and all former entities, Mrs. Reed has held an office position with the company while Mr. Reed has operated the field crew or crews. Mr. Reed has the experience and expertise necessary to handle the work at each site for the business. On the other hand, Mrs. Reed has the office and management skills to direct the "paperwork" side of the business. This includes insurance matters and personnel for the office. Mrs. Reed is particularly active in this business since she put up the capital that largely funded the business enterprise. Although her personal financial investment is primarily at risk, creditors and bonding companies require both Reeds to sign for the company and to be individually obligated as well. Mrs. Reed serves as President/Treasurer of the Petitioner and Mr. Reed is Vice-President/Secretary. Both are authorized to sign bank checks for the company. Mr. Reed has formal training and education in landscape architecture and horticulture as well as extensive experience in this field. Mrs. Reed is responsible for many decisions for the company but relies on the opinions of others and delegates, where appropriate, duties to others as well. Among the delegated duties are: all field work for the company (delegated to Mr. Reed, another foreman, or to crews working a job); estimating or preparing bids (an estimator helps with bids); bookkeeping; contract review; and purchasing (some of which she does herself with input from others). As to each delegated area, however, the Reeds stress teamwork; that they are all working together for the common good of the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, 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 16th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5684 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: None submitted. Iris Reed on behalf of Petitioner submitted a letter summary of her position concerning the hearing which, if intended to be a presentation of fact, is rejected as argument or comment not in a form readily reviewable for either acceptance or rejection as required by rule. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Shields Senior Attorney Commission on Minority Economic & Business Development 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005 Iris F. Reed, Pro se 951 Southwest 121st Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33325 Veronica Anderson Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic & Business Development 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to attorneys' fees.
Findings Of Fact On June 4, 1992, Respondent transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings file materials containing allegations that Petitioner was guilty of child abuse and Petitioner's demand for a hearing. The file was assigned DOAH Case No. 92-3396C. After several continunaces, DOAH Case No. 92-3396C was set for final hearing March 30, 1993, in Tampa. By letter dated March 23, 1993, Respondent, through the District Administrator of District 7, stated to Petitioner: [Respondent], during the trial preparation phase of this case, has voluntarily decided to reclassify your role in the incident in question. As a result of this reclassification, you are no longer identified as having committed abuse or neglect with respect to the alleged incident and the [abuse] report will be changed accordingly. On March 26, 1992, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the case. On April 15, 1993, an Order Closing File was entered. On May 3, 1993, Petitioner commenced the above-styled proceeding by filing a Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Court Costs together with an affidavit of fees and costs. On May 7, 1993, Respondent filed a response demanding that the motion be dismissed. DOAH Case No. 92-3396C was initiated based on the complaints of a minor who charged that Petitioner, her uncle, had sexually abused her for six years on a weekly basis. Respondent's protective investigator spoke with the alleged victim, who repeated these charges, as well as to her parents, who believed her, and to a mental health counsellor, who either said she believed the alleged victim or at least did not say that she did not believe alleged victim. Petitioner steadfastly denied the charges. However, the protective investigator did not contact him prior to closing the case as proposed confirmed. Nor did the protective investigator contact the alleged victim's physician, who would have informed the protective investigator that physical examination of the vagina of the alleged victim disclosed no abnormal findings. The physician would have stated that the alleged victim evidently had not previously engaged in sexual intercourse, which would have contradicted the alleged victim's charges against Petitioner. The record does not disclose that the alleged victim ever recanted. The record contains no direct evidence of an improper purpose on the part of Respondent. In effect, Petitioner urges that such a purpose be inferred from the circumstances. As long as the alleged victim stood by her earlier statements, there remained a genuine issue of fact. Under all of the circumstances, her statement may not have been entitled to much weight. Perhaps evaluating the evidence in like manner, Respondent wisely concluded that its resources could be better directed than litigating DOAH Case No. 92-3396C. But the persistence of the alleged victim in charging Petitioner with sexual abuse undermines the inference that Respondent pursued the prosecution of Petitioner for an improper purpose. In the absence of stronger evidence contradicting the alleged victim's charges, Petitioner fails to show that Respondent maintained the prosecution for an improper purpose.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulated record submitted by the parties, the following Findings of Facts arc made: Following the issuance of its October 13, 1989, jeopardy assessment against Petitioner, Respondent began its efforts to recover the monies allegedly owed by Petitioner. Collectable assets were identified. These identified assets included a bank account at Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. (Account No. 1595012259) in the name of John M. Brumley Racing Engines, Inc. (Corporation) with a balance of $176.29 and real property that appeared to be owned by the Corporation. Respondent gave written notice of its October 13, 1989, jeopardy assessment against Petitioner to Barnett Bank. In the notice, Respondent requested that the bank not transfer nor otherwise dispose of the funds in Account No 1595012259 without Respondent's consent. Subsequently, the bank notified Respondent that it had taken measures to comply with Respondent's request.
Findings Of Fact Aguiar Defense, Inc. was incorporated April 14, 1987, in Florida, with Geny DaSilva Aguiar-Slaughterbeck, the President, owning all of the stock. William S. Slaughterbeck was named Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer. Ms. Aguiar- Slaughterbeck subsequently assigned 50 shares (10 percent) of the stock to David E. Knutson when he joined the company. Knutson was made a Vice- President as is William Slaughterbeck. Geny Aguiar-Slaughterbeck was born in Brazil and holds a BS degree in Business Administration from the University of Southern California. She is married to William S. Slaughterbeck. William S. Slaughterbeck has had some 20 years experience in obtaining and administering government contracts, principally in the procurement of material phases of these contracts. He acted as consultant to Petitioner in obtaining its first large contract from the U. S. Department of Commerce to provide, install and service eighty computer installations. David E. Knutson's experience is primarily in aviation; however, he has some financial experience and computer experience. To finance the formation of Aguiar Defense, Geny Aguiar-Slaughterbeck converted two IRA accounts to cash, borrowed some $5,000 on her automobile, converted two mortgages to cash and used credit cards to purchase office furniture and other pre- incorporation expenses. Her total investment in Petitioner is approximately $24,000. Before submitting a bid on the Commerce Department computer contract, Geny DaSilva Acquiar-Slaughterbeck consulted with her husband and Donald Sayban who was employed by Tandy Corporation at a Radio Shack outlet. Sayban provided advice on the type of equipment needed to meet the bid specifications, and prices were obtained on the components needed to fulfill the contract. A large portion of the bid was prepared by William Slaughterbeck who was unemployed at the time and is eminently familiar with bidding on contracts to supply government agencies with equipment and materials. When the Commerce Department contract was awarded to Aguiar Defense, Ms. Aquiar-Slaughterbeck obtained financing from a local bank with the assistance of the owner of the company supplying most of the components needed to assemble the computer stations; Sayban and Knutson traveled to the sites to install and put the computers in operation; and the travel costs for these installations were financed by Knutson who was subsequently reimbursed by Aguiar Defense. Sayban's travel expenses were paid by Aguiar Defense, but his compensation came from the commissions he received on the computer equipment he sold to Aguiar Defense. Prior to starting Aguiar Defense, Ms. Aguiar- Slaughterbeck served as a part-time school teacher, a distributor for Shaklee Products and a distributor of water treatment equipment and chemical sales. Chemical cleaning products were sold to McDill Air Force Base in Tampa, and door-to-door sales of water treatment equipment were made. When Aguiar Defense was incorporated, these latter two activities were continued as part of the Aguiar Defense operation. All of Petitioner's witnesses testified that Mrs. Aguiar-Slaughterbeck has final authority in deciding which government contracts to bid on, the hiring and firing of all personnel and all financial decisions. No evidence to contradict this testimony was presented. Petitioner obtains most of its information on available contracts on which bids are being solicited from Commerce Business Daily which contains a daily list of government procurement invitations, contract awards, subcontracting leads, sales of surplus property and foreign business opportunities (Exhibit 3). The By-Laws of Petitioner (Article V, Section 2), provide that the President shall be the chief executive officer of the corporation, shall have general and active management of the business and affairs of the corporation subject to the decisions of the Board of Directors, and shall preside at all meetings of the shareholders and Board of Directors. Article III, Section 9, of the By-Laws provides that any director may be removed, with or without cause, by a vote of the holders of a majority of the shares entitled to vote at an election of directors. Article II, Sections 1 and 2 of the By-Laws of Petitioner provide for an annual meeting of the shareholders on May 4 of each year and for special meetings when called by the President, the Board of Directors or when requested in writing by the holders of not less than 10 percent of the shares entitled to vote at the meeting. Directors are elected by the shareholders with each shareholder entitled to one vote for each share of stock held. Article II, Section 11 of the By Laws provides that any action that may be taken by the shareholders at an annual or special meeting may be taken without a meeting, without prior notice or without a vote, if consent in writing, setting forth the actions so taken, is signed by the holders of outstanding stock having not less than the minimum number of votes that would be necessary to authorize or to take such action at which all shares entitled to vote thereon were present and voted. As the holder of ninety percent of the stock, Geny DaSilva Aguiar- Slaughterbeck has control over the Board of Directors by the power to elect or remove any Director by so voting her shares; and the power to effect any corporate decision, even without a meeting of the shareholders or Board of Directors as noted in finding 14 above. No evidence was submitted to indicate that Geny DaSilva Aguiar- Slaughterbeck is a mere figurehead and that the operations of Petitioner are controlled by one who does not qualify as a minority owner. Petitioner is a corporation employing less than 25 persons and having a net value of less than $1,000,000.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Dr. Herbert R. Slavin, is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs in an amount not exceeding $50,000 pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2011).
Findings Of Fact Dr. Slavin, a licensed physician who specializes in internal medicine, has practiced in the state of Florida since 1981. In or around 2008, Dr. Slavin formed, and is the sole shareholder of, "Ageless Medicine Associates," a subchapter S corporation1/ under which he practices medicine. On October 31, 2011, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint that charged Dr. Slavin with two statutory violations, both of which were ultimately dismissed by the Board of Medicine. In connection with that proceeding, Dr. Slavin now seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111. As explained later in this Final Order, a party seeking fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111 must demonstrate that he or she was a "small business party" at the time the underlying action was initiated by the state——in this instance, October 31, 2011. Section 57.111(3)(d) contemplates that a small business party can take four alternative forms, only two of which require discussion here: a partnership or corporation, including a professional practice, that, during the relevant timeframe, had 25 or fewer full-time employees or a net worth of not more than $2,000,000 (section 57.111(3)(d)1.b.); or an individual whose net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 during the relevant period (section 57.111(3)(d)1.c.). The evidence establishes that, as of October 2011, Ageless Medicine Associates had fewer than 25 employees and a net worth that did not exceed $2,000,000. The problem, though, and as discussed elsewhere in this Order, is that section 57.111(3)(d)1.b. has no application where, as in this case, the underlying complaint was filed against a licensee individually, rather than the partnership or corporation under which the licensee conducts business. As for Dr. Slavin's personal finances, his 2011 tax return reflects income of $171,810, virtually all of which comprises wages and business income derived from Ageless Medicine Associates, and an adjusted gross income of $161,400. The remainder of Dr. Slavin's financial picture (including, for example, any assets on hand that did not generate taxable income) during October 2011 is nebulous, however, for nearly all of his testimony focused incorrectly on his finances at the time of the final hearing: Q. Are you, doctor, currently worth $2,000,000? A. No. * * * Q. Dr. Slavin, do you own a home? A. Yes. Q. How much, if you know, is that home worth? A. Probably around $300,000 to $350,000. Q. And do you have a mortgage on that home? A. Yes. Q. How much is the mortgage; do you know? A. $145,000. Q. And do you have any cash in the bank? A. Yes. Q. How much? A. Around $10,000 . . . . * * * Q. Do you own any boats? A. No. Q. Do you own any vacation homes? A. No. Q. Do you own any interest in any other businesses? A. No. Q. Do you have a lot of stock accounts? A. No. * * * Q. Okay. Is there any other asset that you have that has not been mentioned; your home, your business? Do you own your vehicles? A. No, they're leased. Q. Do you own any other stocks or bonds that provide you with an income or that are worth money, that you know of? A. No. * * * Q. Dr. Slavin, you testified that -- You were asked by counsel whether or not you had a lot of stocks or bonds as assets and you stated no. Do you -- what does a lot mean? A. Well, I have -- I don't have any direct ownership of stocks or bonds. There are some annuities I have that have, I guess, investments and mutual funds or something. You know, I'm not -– * * * Q. Dr. Slavin, have you presented any information or any documentation as to what items are within your home? A. Not that I'm aware of. I have a television, -- Q. Do you have -- A. -- a refrigerator and -- Q. Do you have furniture in your home? A. Yeah. I have furniture, a refrigerator, stove, microwave. I have -- Q. Do you have computer equipment in your home? A. I have laptop computers in the home. Q. Do you have any personal items; jewelry, watches in your home? A. I have -– Yes, I have watches. Final Hearing Transcript, pp. 23; 25-28; 30-31 (emphasis added). Even assuming, arguendo, that Dr. Slavin's testimony had been properly oriented to the relevant time period (which it was not, in nearly all instances), his overall evidentiary presentation was simply too fragmentary to permit the undersigned to independently determine the value of his net worth——a figure derived2/ by subtracting total liabilities from total assets. For example, Dr. Slavin provided: no information concerning his annuities and mutual funds, the value of which could be non- trivial due to the remunerative nature his profession and his length of time in practice; no details regarding the value of his household assets; and no credible evidence regarding the value of his home.3/ In light of these gaping holes in the evidence, which preclude anything more than rank speculation concerning the value of Dr. Slavin's personal net worth, it is determined that status as a small business party has not been proven.4/ Because Dr. Slavin's failure to establish his status as a small business party is fatal to his application for attorney's fees, it is unnecessary to determine whether the underlying proceeding was substantially justified.
The Issue Whether Respondents are indebted to Petitioner for agricultural products and, if so, the amount of the indebtedness.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner delivered to Respondent, Fresh Pick Farms, Inc., (Fresh Pick) a total of 932 bushels of green beans on November 21 and 22, 1992. These beans were delivered and received with the agreement that Fresh Pick would attempt to sell the beans on a consignment basis in the wholesale market. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, communication in South Florida was limited because of the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. Telephone lines were down, packing houses and storage facilities had been destroyed, and many businesses were not operating. The packer that Petitioner customarily used was out of business. Fresh Pick was operating out of temporary facilities. Lewis Walker, the president of Fresh Pick, had inspected Petitioner's beans on November 18, 1992. Mr. Walker advised Petitioner to have his beans harvested no later than November 20, 1992. This advice was based on the condition of the beans, on the fact that there was a great deal of rain in the area, and the fact that markets slow down and prices drop as Thanksgiving approaches. The beans delivered to Fresh Pick on November 21 and 22, 1992, were damaged due to the wet weather. These beans were of such poor quality that they could not be sold given the marketing conditions. Fresh Pick made every reasonable effort to find a market for Petitioner's beans without success. After it became apparent to Fresh Pick that it would be unable to sell Petitioner's beans, employees of Fresh Pick made efforts to locate Petitioner, explain to him why the beans could not be sold, and ask him for instructions. Petitioner could not be located despite good faith efforts by Fresh Pick employees to do so. Rather than dump the unsold beans, Fresh Pick gave the beans to a charity referred to as Food Share. The disposition of the beans was consistent with industry practices in South Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order in this case dismissing the Petitioner's complaint and denying the relief requested by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Harvey Johnson 538 Northwest 13th Street Florida City, Florida 33304 J. James Donnellan, III, Esquire 1900 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Legal Department Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company 5700 Southwest 34th Street Gainesville, Florida 32608 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel 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
