Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all relevant times, respondent, Passport Internationale, Inc. (Passport or respondent), was a seller of travel registered with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). As such, it was required to post a performance bond with the Department conditioned on the performance of contracted services. In this case, petitioner, H. Fleischer, has filed a claim against the bond for $648.95 alleging that Passport failed to perform on certain contracted services. On an undisclosed date in 1991, petitioner responded to a newspaper advertisement promoting a five-day, four-night cruise to the Bahamas for $99.00 per person. After calling a toll-free number, petitioner was told that in order to take the trip, he must purchase a video for $198.00 plus $11.95 postage, or a total of $209.95. Petitioner agreed to purchase the video in order to take advantage of the trip. The advertisement was being run by a telemarketeer in Tennessee who had been authorized to sell Passport's travel certificates. As such, it was acting as an agent on behalf of Passport. In June 1991, the assets and liabilities of Passport were assumed by Incentive Internationale Travel, Inc. (Incentive). Even so, any travel described in certificates sold after that date under the name of Passport was still protected by Passport's bond. Within seven days after receiving the video and other materials, which carried the name, address, logo and telephone number of Passport, petitioner returned the same to the telemarketeer along with a request for a refund of his money. When he did not receive a refund, he filed a complaint with the Department. In response to a Department inquiry, in December 1991 Incentive declined to issue a refund on the ground the video was purchased from a Tennessee firm, and not Passport, and Passport had never received any money from the telemarketeer. Incentive offered, however, to honor the travel certificate by allowing petitioner to purchase a trip to the Bahamas under the same terms and conditions as were previously offered. On July 6, 1992, petitioner accepted Incentive's offer and paid that firm $439.00 for additional accommodations, meals, fees and taxes. Shortly after July 24, 1992, petitioner received a letter from Incentive advising that his trip had been cancelled and that the firm had filed for bankruptcy protection. To date, petitioner has not received a refund of his money.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim of petitioner against the bond of respondent be granted, and he be reimbursed $648.95 from the bond. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of December, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Fleischer 15 Wind Ridge Road North Caldwell, NJ 07006 Michael J. Panaggio 2441 Bellevue Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Robert G. Worley, Esquire 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all relevant times, respondent, Passport Internationale, Inc. (Passport or respondent), was a seller of travel registered with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). As such, it was required to post a performance bond with the Department conditioned on the performance of contracted services. In this case, petitioner, William L. Taylor, has filed a claim against the bond in the amount of $605.95 alleging that Passport failed to perform on certain contracted services. At hearing, petitioner agreed that his claim should be reduced by $300.00 to take into account a settlement offer in that amount received from Passport. By way of background, Passport's assets and liabilities were assumed by Incentive Internationale Travel, Inc. (Incentive) in June 1991, and its status as a corporation was dissolved sometime in late 1991. However, Incentive continued to sell Passport's travel certificates after the merger of the two corporations, and all travel described in those certificates was protected by Passport's bond. In response to an offer in a local newspaper for a "bargain trip" to the Bahamas, on June 25, 1991, petitioner mailed a cashier's check in the amount of $605.95 payable to Incentive Internationale Travel, a telemarketeer in Tennessee using a name almost identical to Incentive and who was operating under the auspices of Open Door, Inc. (Open Door), another telemarketeer whose business location is unknown. Open Door had purchased approximately 1,000 travel certificates from Passport for resale to the public. Passport had agreed to honor and fulfill all travel certificates sold by Open Door or its agents. The travel certificates carried the name, address and logo of Passport. During his discussions with the telemarketeer, petitioner was never told that his requested travel dates might be unavailable. Had he been so advised, he would not have purchased the certificates. After receiving his travel certificates, on September 10, 1991, petitioner mailed them with a check in the amount of $270.00 to Passport. He requested that his travel begin on Monday, November 25, 1991. That date was critical because he wished to celebrate his 50th wedding anniversary in the Bahamas. On September 30, 1991, Passport advised petitioner by letter that it could not honor his request for travel on November 25, 1991, and offered alternative dates. He was also offered the option of receiving a refund of his money. Petitioner immediately requested a refund. When petitioner received a refund of only $270.00, and not the $605.95 previously paid to the telemarketeer, he filed a complaint with the Department. On November 20, 1991, Incentive advised petitioner that because Open Door had gone out of business, and Passport had never received the $605.95 paid to the telemarketeer, it had no obligation to make a refund of the remainder of his money. Sometime later, however, Incentive sent to petitioner a check in the amount of $300.00 in an effort to settle the case. Petitioner deposited the check but claims he is still owed $305.95.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim of petitioner against the bond of respondent be granted in the amount of $305.95. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 12th day of December, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Taylor 185 Tower Lakes Lake Wales, Florida 33853 Michael J. Panaggio 2441 Bellevue Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Robert G. Worley, Esquire 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all relevant times, respondent, Passport Internationale, Inc. (Passport or respondent), was a seller of travel registered with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). As such, it was required to post a performance bond with the Department conditioned on the performance of contracted services. In this case, petitioner, Cecile M. Haake, has filed a claim against the bond in the amount of $398.00 alleging that Passport failed to perform on certain contracted services. On December 24, 1990, petitioner responded to a newspaper advertisement promoting a five-day, four-night cruise to the Bahamas for $199.00 per person. The advertisement was run by Travel Partners International (TPI), a telemarketeer selling travel certificates on behalf of Passport. Petitioner purchased a certificate authorizing two persons to take the cruise. For this, she paid $398.00. Shortly thereafter, petitioner received a package with a reservation request form. The form carried the name, address and telephone number of Passport. It should have contained an issue date and the name of the sponsor, but TPI erroneously left that information blank. Ordinarily, a certificate would expire one year after the issue date. Petitioner was not told this when she agreed to purchase the package. Around February 20, 1992, petitioner returned the reservation request form to Passport with a requested travel date of May 1, 1992. On February 26, 1992, Passport returned the form and advised petitioner that "your reservation form was not completed by your sponsor." She was told to have TPI complete the form, and resubmit it with her requested travel dates. By now, however, TPI had gone out of business. Petitioner accordingly filled in TPI's name in the space for the sponsor, and she inserted an issue date of March 15, 1991. This meant her certificate would expire on March 15, 1992, or less than a month later. She again returned the form to Passport. Since her requested travel dates were more than a year after the issue date, Passport declined to accept the reservation. Although in some cases Passport offered to extend certificates for an additional year for a $50.00 fee, there is no evidence that Passport did so in this case. When petitioner requested a refund of her money, Passport's successor corporation, Incentive International Travel, Inc. (Incentive), declined to issue a refund on the ground the package was purchased from TPI and not Passport, and Passport had never received any money from the telemarketeer. To date, petitioner has never received a refund of her money.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim of petitioner against the bond of respondent be granted in the amount of $398.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecile M. Haake 7254 Quail Meadow Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 Julie Johnson McCollum 2441 Bellevue Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Robert G. Worley, Esquire 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees.
Findings Of Fact The District is a state agency involved with the management of the water resources of several Northeast Florida counties. Ms. Keel is a resident of Palatka, Florida, and is a former employee of the District. Her name was Cheryl L. Worgum when she began working for the District in December 1997, as a Business Resource Specialist. During times pertinent, Ms. Keel held the position of Business Resource Specialist II. Her duties included purchasing supplies on behalf of the District. She was issued a State of Florida purchasing card to facilitate the accomplishment of her duties. When she was issued the purchasing card on August 14, 2002, Ms. Keel signed a cardholder agreement to the effect that she understood certain purchases were prohibited and that she would adhere to the District's purchasing card policy. The District's purchasing card policy provided that the purchasing card would be used for District needs only. The policy made it clear that the purchasing card was not provided to Ms. Keel so that she could supplement her income. Ms. Keel understood the policy. While employed by the District in 2003 and 2004, and in January 2005 on two occasions, which were subsequent to her resignation on December 30, 2004, Ms. Keel made purchases totaling $19,659.09 for her own personal benefit. These purchases included items of apparel, school supplies, lamps, and electronics, among other items that were not acquired for the benefit of the District. Ms. Keel submitted a letter of apology to the District dated June 21, 2005. In that letter, she accepted responsibility for her actions. As of December 2007, Ms. Keel had repaid only $1,400 of the $19,659.09 that she had wrongfully obtained.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order and public report be entered finding that Respondent Cheryl W. Keel, violated Subsection 112.313(6), Florida Statutes; that she be required to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000 and restitution in the amount of $18,259.09; and that she be publicly censured and reprimanded. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 16th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer M. Erlinger, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Cheryl W. Keel 650 Bardin Road Palatka, Florida 32177 Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Philip C. Claypool Executive Director and General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Findings Of Fact Mr. Akinsomisoye was hired in July 1988 in a career service position with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a Public Assistance Specialist II, in Economic Services, handling determinations of eligibility for food stamps at the service center in south Broward County. On August 26, 1990, Mr. Akinsomisoye requested authorization for four to five weeks of annual leave, which he had earned. He intended to return to his family home in Nigeria because his father had telephoned to say that his mother was seriously ill. The supervisor for Mr. Akinsomisoye, JoAnne Chamberlain, authorized only 80 hours of leave, because the Department did not have sufficient staff to cover his duties for an absence of more than that time. Mr. Akinsomisoye was dissatisfied with Ms. Chamberlain's decision and first discussed the matter with her supervisor, the program operations administrator, Elizabeth Massey, and then with Ms. Masey's supervisor, the program administrator, Deborah McGowen. Both supported the position of Ms. Chamberlain that they could only approve 80 hours of leave. Mr. Akinsomisoye agreed in writing on August 31, 1990, that his leave would run from September 4, 1990, at 8:00 a.m., through September 17, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. He was due back to work on the morning of Monday, September 18, 1990, at 8:00 a.m. (Dept. Ex. 4). Mr. Akinsomisoye traveled to his native country of Nigeria and visited his family. While he was in Nigeria, his mother passed away on September 14, 1990. Mr. Akinsomisoye did not contact his supervisor at the HRS while he was in Nigeria during his period of approved leave. On September 19, 1990, the wife of Mr. Akinsomisoye telephoned JoAnne Chamberlain at work and stated that Mr. Akinsomisoye's flight from Nigeria had been cancelled but that he hoped to return to work on September 21, 1990, and that Mr. Akinsomisoye would try to call Ms. Chamberlain at home. On September 21, 1990, Petitioner's wife again contacted Joanne Chamberlain and stated that Mr. Akinsomisoye was still having difficulties obtaining a flight back to the United States and that she did not know when he would be returning back to work, but that she would call Ms. Chamberlain again when she knew more. Ms. Chamberlain heard no more from Mr. Akinsomisoye's wife for one week. On October 1, 1990, Ms. Chamberlain, jointly with her supervisor, submitted a recommendation for his termination based on abandonment of his position. At 10:00 p.m. that night, Mr. Akinsomisoye called Ms. Chamberlain from Nigeria at her home. He said his mother had passed away and he hoped to be in Miami by October 5, 1990. He asked Ms. Chamberlain for an additional week of leave, but she offered none. She did not tell him that she had submitted the recommendation for his termination for abandonment of his job that day. October 4, 1990, the Department prepared a certified letter of termination due to abandonment to Mr. Akinsomisoye addressed to his post office box. The letter was postmarked on October 5, 1990. The envelope bears markings which would indicate that slips were placed in Mr. Akinsomisoye's post office box for him to pick up the certified letter on October 9, 17, and 24, 1990. The letter was returned to the Department by the U.S. Postal Service as "unclaimed" on October 29, 1990. The significant portion of the letter of termination stated: In accordance with Chapter 22A-7 of the State of Florida Career Services Rules and regulations, since you did not report to work as scheduled September 18, 1990 and you have not reported to work since that time you have abandoned your position of Public Assistance Specialist II. Your resignation was effective at the close of business September 24, 1990. On November 27, 1990, Mr. Akinsomisoye did call his supervisor, Ms. Chamberlain, to tell her he was back in town and to inquire about his job. He had not received an answer to his request for an additional week of leave from Ms. Chamberlain during his late night call on October 1, 1990, when he asked for more leave, and this was his next communication with any employee of the Department. Mr. Akinsomisoye testified that he returned to Miami on October 6, 1990, and that evening telephoned his supervisor, who advised him to go to his post office box, and to pick up a letter advising him of his employer's action. Mr. Akinsomisoye maintains that he did check his post office box, but found no letter. This testimony is not believable. Both Ms. Chamberlain and Ms. McGowen kept contemporaneous notes of contacts with or about Mr. Akinsomisoye and there are no entries for October 6, 1990. It is also not believable that if he had returned on October 6, 1990, a properly addressed certified letter mailed to his post office box would not have been delivered to him. That letter was returned to the Department unclaimed. Even if the letter had been mishandled by the post office, it is not believable that he would not have contacted a supervisor, or the Department personnel office in Broward County, on his job status during the period October 6, 1990, to November 27, 1990. The evidence is persuasive that Mr. Akinsomisoye returned to south Florida on November 26 or 27, 1990, not before. It is also significant that Mr. Akinsomisoye has no passport bearing a stamp which would show when he returned to the United States, nor any boarding pass, airline ticket, or any other information that would demonstrate the date of his return. The preponderance of the evidence gives rise to the inference that he had not returned to the United States as of the time the certified letter was returned by the U.S. Postal Service to the Department on October 29, 1990, which would mean that he had been away from his job from the time his approved annual leave had expired on September 18, 1990, through at least October 29, 1990. The Department had received no word from Mr. Akinsomisoye, or his wife, on Mr. Akinsomisoye's whereabouts since October 1, 1990, when he telephoned Ms. Chamberlain at home and informed her of his mother's death, and requested an additional week of leave. The Employee Handbook for employees of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, dated October 1, 1988, was provided to Mr. Akinsomisoye when he was employed. Under the heading of Absences, at page 13, it states: If you expect to be absent from work for any reason, you must request leave from your supervisor as much in advance as possible, so that suitable disposition of your work may be made to avoid undue hardship on fellow employees and clients. As soon as you know you will be late or absent from work you must notify your supervisor. Absence without approved leave is cause for disciplinary action. If you are absent for three consecutive workdays without authorization, you may be considered to have abandoned your position and thus resigned. The Department requires its employees to make request for leave, to a supervisor, in advance. Leave will be approved for death in the immediate family upon request. Obviously that type of leave cannot be anticipated. Although Mr. Akinsomisoye attempted to request an additional week of leave from Ms. Chamberlain based upon his mother's death when he telephoned her from Nigeria on October 1, 1990, he returned to the United States only in late November 1990, much more than one week later. It is certainly possible that Mr. Akinsomisoye could have had difficulty in obtaining a return flight from Nigeria to the United States had he left hoping to report to work on September 18, 1990. That he could not return until late November is difficult to believe. He has produced no corroborating proof of any such difficulty from Nigeria Airways showing cancellation of flights, nor information of any kind to demonstrate when he returned to the United States, either in the form of a boarding pass, or an airline ticket for his return trip, or a passport showing the date he reentered the United States. Mr. Akinsomisoye was absent from his employment without authorized leave from September 18, 1990, to November 27, 1990, and the Department heard nothing from him or his wife since October 1, 1990.
Recommendation It is recommended that a final order be entered by the Secretary of the Department of Administration finding that Mr. Akinsomisoye abandoned his career service position, and is not eligible to be reinstated with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or to receive any back pay. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 29th day of June 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3397 Rulings of Findings proposed by the Department. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 through 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 6. 4(a). Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 4(b). Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 8(a). Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 8(b). Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 18. Rulings of Findings proposed by the Mr. Akinsomisoye. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Mr. Akinsomisoye called his supervisor only on October 1, 1990, however, not before his leave expired on September 18, 1990. See Finding 9. Rejected as inconsistent with the more persuasive evidence. Mr. Akinsomisoye did not return until shortly before November 27, 1990. See Finding 12 and the reasons for rejecting the testimony set out in Finding 13. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Ms. Chamberlain did not authorize additional leave because she knew that the Department had already begun termination proceedings, which she had initiated. Although annual leave must ordinarily be approved in advance, that is not true for family leave arising from the death of a family member. That leave might have been approved, but was not. In view of the very substantial lapse of time from the leave request made on October 1, 1990, until Mr. Akinsomisoye again contacted the Department on November 27, 1990, the failure of Ms. Chamberlain to have approved the leave ordinarily available for the death of a close family member is not significant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16, but the final sentence is rejected for the reasons stated in Finding of Fact 17. Rejected, see Finding of Fact 18. By November 27, 1990, he no longer had a job. November 27, 1990, is the first time the Department heard from Mr. Akinsomisoye since October 1, 1990, when he requested additional leave. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Robinson, Esquire Suite 600, Barnett Bank Building 7900 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33138 Jacqueline S. Banke, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Room 306 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1885 John A. Pieno Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 John M. Carlson, Esquire Department of Administration 438 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all relevant times, respondent, Passport Internationale, Inc. (Passport or respondent), was a seller of travel registered with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). As such, it was required to post a performance bond with the Department conditioned on the performance of contracted services. In this case, petitioner, Lori Millard, has filed a claim against the bond in the amount of $415.90 alleging that Passport failed to perform on certain contracted services. In response to an offer in a local newspaper for a trip to the Bahamas, on March 27, 1991, petitioner issued a check in the amount of $415.90 payable to Passport International, Inc., a telemarketeer in Tennessee using a name almost identical to Passport, and who was operating as Passport's agent. Passport International, Inc. had purchased an undisclosed amount of travel certificates from Passport for resale to the public. Passport had agreed to honor and fulfill all travel certificates sold by the telemarketeer, and the certificates carried Passport's name, address and logo. During her discussions with the telemarketeer, petitioner was told that if she was dissatisfied with the offer at anytime, she could get a full refund of her money. Petitioner relied upon this representation in making her purchase. After receiving her travel certificates, petitioner attempted to reserve her desired travel dates but was unsuccessful. She then attempted to obtain a refund of her money, as originally promised by Passport's agent, but was told by Passport to contact the telemarketeer on the ground that the telemarketeer, and not Passport, had collected her money. By now, however, the telemarketeer had ceased doing business. To date, petitioner has never received a refund.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim of petitioner against the bond of respondent be granted in the amount of $415.90. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Lori Millard P. O. Box 28 Kinderhook, New York 12106 Julie Johnson McCollum 2441 Bellevue Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Robert G. Worley, Esquire 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is a conflict between the corporate names of Travel Unlimited, Inc. and Travel Unlimited of Harbor Beach, Inc.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Travel Unlimited, Inc., is a travel agency doing business in the northern part of Dade County and southern part of Broward County, State of Florida. The corporation, which was chartered in 1973, is physically located in North Miami Beach, Florida. Petitioner has extensively advertised its travel business for several years in the "Miami Herald," a newspaper of wide circulation in Dade and Broward Counties. It also has circulation in Palm Beach County, Florida. The Respondent, Travel Unlimited of Harbor Beach, Inc., was chartered in December of 1980, and is located approximately 15 to 20 miles from Petitioner in a heavily populated metropolitan area. Telephone calls are toll free between the Hollywood area of Broward County and northern Dade County. In addition to its northern Dade County telephone numbers, Petitioner has maintained for years at additional expense an additional telephone line into Fort Lauderdale. This telephone line provides toll free service between northern Broward County and northern Dade County. A great deal of confusion has been created by the Respondent travel agency's use of the name Travel Unlimited of Harbor Beach, Inc. Numerous telephone calls have been received by Petitioner which were intended for that Respondent. Mail from various airlines has been received by Petitioner which was intended for that Respondent. An employee of Petitioner was almost denied the right to special agent discounts because an airline confused the Petitioner with the Respondent travel agency despite their different IATA numbers. It appears that in spite of their IATA numbers being different, confusion occurs even with professionals in the industry. The parties submitted proposed findings of fact, memoranda of law and proposed recommended orders which were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this order they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of State revoke the reservation for the corporate name Travel Unlimited of Harbor Beach, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-967 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Maurice Rosen, Esquire Suite 112, Interama Professional Building 16666 NE 19th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Robert Kupchak, Vice President Travel Unlimited of Harbor Beach, Inc. 2198 SE 17th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Stephen Nall, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
