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
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, Drewes R. Rogge, has filed a claim against the bond in the amount of $1060.00 alleging that Passport failed to perform on certain contracted services. In July 1990, petitioner purchased a travel certificate from Raka Concepts, a telemarketeer authorized by Passport to sell travel certificates on its behalf. Raca Concepts filed for bankruptcy shortly after the transaction occurred, but a Passport representative assured petitioner that it would honor all travel promised by its agent. The certificate, which cost $399.00, entitled the holder and a companion to lodging for four nights in the Bahamas, two nights in Orlando, and two nights in Daytona Beach. Also, the certificate included transportation to and from the Bahamas by a cruise line. After paying for meals on the ship, taxes and additional charges for his children, petitioner's total cost was $634.00. In his claim, however, petitioner has requested a refund of $1,060.00, which includes the cost of upgrades to better accommodations, extra meals, a "VIP package," taxi fares, and a tip. The derivation of this amount is found in petitioner's exhibit 1 received in evidence. All transportion and lodging arrangements were booked by Passport. During the trip, petitioner experienced numerous difficulties, which are described in detail in exhibit 1. Among other problems, he says the cruise ship was overcrowded and dirty, and the original accommodations in Freeport did not meet his expectations (i. e., they were unsafe) causing him to upgrade to better accommodations at a price higher than was represented by Passport's agent. The total cost of the hotel upgrade was $164.85. Also, he was not notified that his scheduled transportation via cruise line from Freeport to Fort Lauderdale was cancelled at the last minute causing him to spend an extra night in the Bahamas. The cruise line, however, paid for his additional night's lodging. When the cruise line returned the following day it sailed to Miami rather than Fort Lauderdale. Petitioner was then taken by bus to Fort Lauderdale at no charge. Finally, before the trip began, petitioner discovered that he was booked into a hotel in Haines City rather than Orlando. After petitioner lodged a protest, Passport agreed to change his accommodations to Orlando. Mainly because of these problems, petitioner has asked for a refund of virtually all of the money spent on the package. Except for the mispresentation regarding the quality of the originally assigned accommodations in Freeport and the price of the upgraded accommodations, which cost petitioner an extra $164.85, there was no showing that Passport was guilty of misrepresentation in its handling of this transaction or otherwise failed to substantially perform the contracted services. Therefore, petitioner should be reimbursed $164.85.
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 part and he be paid $164.85 from the bond. 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: Drewes R. Rogge 5804 Chesterfield Drive Chester, Virginia 23831 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
The Issue Has Respondent Fancy Farms Sales, Inc. (Fancy Farms) made proper accounting to Petitioner Wayne Sullivan in accordance with Section 604.22(1), Florida Statutes, for agriculture products delivered to Fancy Farms from November 8, 1994, through December 10, 1994, by Wayne Sullivan to be handled by Fancy Farms as agent for Wayne Sullivan on a net return basis as defined in Section 604.15(4), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Wayne Sullivan was in the business of growing and selling "agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes, and was a "producer" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Fancy Farms was licensed as a "dealer in agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes, as evidenced by license number 8453 issued by the Department, supported by bond number 57 92 20 in the amount of $75,000, written by Gulf Insurance Company with an inception date of September 1, 1994, and an expiration date of August 31, 1995. From November 8, 1994, through December 10, 1994 Wayne Sullivan delivered certain quantities of an agricultural product (zucchini) to Fancy Farms. It is the accounting for these zucchini (zukes) that is in dispute. It was stipulated by the parties that Fancy Farms was acting as agent in the sale of the zukes delivered to Fancy Farms for the account of Wayne Sullivan on a net return basis. There is no dispute as the quantity or size of the zukes delivered by Wayne Sullivan to Fancy Farms during the above period of time. Furthermore, there is no dispute as to the charges made by Fancy Farms for handling the zukes, including but not limited to the commission charged by Fancy Farms. The agreed upon commission was ten per cent (10 percent) of the price received by Fancy Farms from its customers. There is no evidence that Fancy Farms found any problem with the quality of the zukes delivered to Fancy Farms by Wayne Sullivan during the above period of time. Upon delivering the zukes to Fancy Farms, Sullivan was given a prenumbered delivery receipt ticket (delivery ticket) showing Wayne Sullivan as Grower number 116 and containing the following additional information: (a) date and time of delivery; (b) produce number, i.e., 37 indicating fancy zukes and 38 indicating medium zukes; (c) description of the produce, i.e., zukes, fancy; (d) a lot number containing number of delivery ticket, grower number and produce number, i.e. 2074-116-37 and; (e) the number of units of zukes received by Fancy Farm. The accounting for the zukes from the following delivery receipt ticket numbers is being contested in this proceeding: (a) 2127 dated November 8, 1994, lot nos. 2127-116-37 and 2127-116-38; (b) 22145 dated November 10, 1994, lot nos. 2145-116-37 and 2145-116-38; (c) 2181 dated November 15, 1994, lot nos. 2181-116-37 and 2181-116-38; (d) 2242 dated November 29, 1994, lot nos. 2242- 116-37 and 2242-116-38; (e) 2254 dated December 1, 1994, lot nos. 2254-116-37 and 2254-116-38; (f) 2289 dated December 7, 1994, lot nos. 2289-116-37 and 2289- 116-38 and; (g) 2313 dated December 10, 1994, lot nos. 2313-116-37 and 2313-116- 38. Once Fancy Farms found a customer for the zukes, Fancy Farms prepared a prenumbered billing invoice. Additionally, a bill of lading and load sheet was prepared and attached to the invoice. The bill of lading and load sheet would have the same number as the invoice. Basically, the invoice and bill of lading contained the customer's name and address, produce number, description of produce, number of units ordered, number of units shipped and the price per unit. The load sheet contains the customer's name, produce number, description of produce, units ordered, units shipped and the lot number for the units that made up the shipment. On numerous occasions Fancy Farms made adjustments to the selling price after the price had been quoted and accepted but before the invoice was prepared. Fancy Farms did not make any written notations in its records showing the adjustments to the price or the reasons for the adjustments to the price. Salvatore Toscano testified, and I find his testimony to be credible, that this usually occurred when there was a decrease in the market price after Fancy Farms made the original quote. Therefore, in order to keep the customer, Fancy Farms made an adjustment to the price. Sullivan was never made aware of these price adjustments. In accounting for the zukes delivered by Sullivan, Fancy Farms prepared a Grower Statement which included the delivery ticket number, the date of delivery, the lot number, grower number, produce number, description of the produce, quantity (number of units), price per unit and total due. Payment for the zukes was made to Wayne Sullivan from these statements by Fancy Farms. Sometimes payment may be for only one delivery ticket while at other times payment would be for several delivery tickets for different dates. A portion of Petitioner's composite exhibit 1 is the Florida Vegetable Report (Market Report), Volume XIV, Nos. 19, 21, 23, 31, 33, 37 and 40, dated October 28, 31, 1994, November 8, 10, 15, 29, 1994, and December 7, 12, 1994, respectively. The Market Report is a federal-state publication which reports the demand (moderate), market (steady), volume (units) sold and prices paid per unit for numerous vegetables, including zucchini, on a daily basis. The prices quoted for zucchini is for 1/2 and 5/9th bushel cartons and includes palletizing. The average cost for palletizing in the industry is 65 per carton. Fancy Farms receives and sells zukes in one-half (1/2) bushel cartons. Fancy Farms does not palletize the cartons for handling at its warehouse or for shipment. On November 8, 10, 15, 1994, Sullivan delivered a combined total of 130 units of fancy zukes and a combined total 206 units of medium zukes represented by delivery receipt ticket nos. 2127, 2145 and 218l, for a combined total of fancy and medium zukes of 336 units for which Fancy Farms paid Sullivan the sum of $1,171.00 as evidenced by the Grower Statement dated November 25, 1994. Forty eight units of fancy zukes represented by lot no. 2127-116-37 was billed out by Fancy Farms to P. H. Lucks, Inc. for $5.00 per unit. Without an explanation, Fancy Farms reduced the price to $2.50 per unit. However, Fancy Farms paid Sullivan $5.00 per unit for the 48 units of fancy zukes. Five units of medium zukes represented by lot no. 2145-116-38 were not accounted for by invoice. Thirty two units of fancy zukes represented by lot no. 2181-116-37 were not accounted for by invoice. Nineteen units of medium zukes represented by lot no. 2242-116-38 were not accounted for by invoice. Where there is no invoice the price quoted in the Market Report is used to calculate the amount due Sullivan. The amount due Sullivan from the Grower Statement dated November 25, 1994, is: Lot No. 2127-116-37: $5.00 per unit x 48 units (Invoice 3814) = $ 240.00 Lot No. 2127-116-38: $3.50 per unit x 45 units (Market Report) = $ 157.50 $3.50 per unit x 35 units (Invoice 3783) = $ 122.50 Lot No. 2145-116-37: $5.00 per unit x 12 units (Invoice 3818) = $ 60.00 $5.00 per unit x 38 units (Invoice 3822) = $ 190.00 Lot No. 2145-116-38: $3.00 per unit x 13 units (Invoice 3820) = $ 39.00 $3.00 per unit x 22 units (Invoice 3822) = $ 66.00 $3.00 per unit x 5 units (Market Report) = $ 15.00 Lot No. 2l81-116-37: $8.00 per unit x 32 units (Market Report) = $ 256.00 Lot No. 2181-116-38: $3.50 per unit x 86 units (Invoice 3778) = $ 301.00 Total owed to Sullivan = $1,447.00 Less: Amount paid Sullivan = $1,171.00 Ten per cent commission = 144.70 Net due Sullivan = 131.30 On November 29, 1994, Sullivan delivered 53 units of fancy zukes and 69 units of medium zukes as represented by delivery ticket no. 2242 for a combined total of 112 units for which Sullivan was paid $472.00 by Fancy Farms as represented by the Grower Statement dated December 7, 1994. The prices of $3.25 and $3.00 as indicated by invoice nos. 3941 and 3947, respectively are not indicative of the market for fancy zukes as established by the Market Report for December 1, 1994. The Market Report established an average price of $8.00 per unit for fancy zukes. Likewise, the price of $3.00 per unit for medium zukes as indicated by invoice no. 3927 is not indicative of the market for medium zukes as established by the Market Report for December 1, 1994. The Market Report established an average price of $6.00 per unit for medium zukes. The amount due Sullivan from the Grower Statement dated December 7, 1994, is: Lot no. 2242-116-37: $8.00 per unit x 53 units (Market Report) = $ 424.00 Lot no. 2242-116-38: $6.00 per unit x 69 units (Market Report) = $ 414.00 Total owed Sullivan = $ 838.00 Less: Amount paid Sullivan = $ 472.00 Ten Percent Commission = $ 83.80 Net due Sullivan = $ 282.20 On December 1, 7, 1994, Sullivan delivered a combined total of 51 units of fancy zukes and a combined total of 87 units of medium zukes for a combined total of 138 units of fancy and medium zukes represented by delivery ticket nos. 2254 and 2289 and was paid $516.00 for these zukes by Fancy Farms as represented by the Grower Statement dated December 15, 1994. There was no invoice for lot nos. 2254-116-37 or 2254-116-38. The Market Report established a market price of $8.00 and $6.00 per unit for fancy and medium zukes, respectively. The amount due Sullivan from the Growers Statement dated December 15, 1994, is: Lot No. 2254-116-37: $8.00 per unit x 39 units (Market Report) = $ 312.00 Lot No. 2254-116-38: $6.00 per unit x 20 units (Market Report) = $ 120.00 Lot No. 2289-116-37: $6.00 per unit x 12 units (Invoice 4049) = $ 72.00 Lot No. 2289-116-38: $3.50 per unit x 67 units (Invoice 3946) = $ 234.50 Total owed Sullivan = $ 738.50 Less: Amount paid Sullivan = $ 516.00 Ten Percent Commission = $ 73.85 Net due Sullivan = $ 148.65 On December 10, 1994, Sullivan delivered 27 units of fancy zukes and 18 units of medium zukes for a combined total of 45 units as represented by delivery ticket no. 2313 and was paid $211.50 for those zukes by Fancy Farms as represented by Growers Statement dated December 23, 1994. The 18 units of medium zukes represented by lot no. 2313-116-38 are not covered by an invoice. The Market Report established a unit price of $6.00 for the fancy zukes. Invoice no. 4075 billed the fancy zukes at zero without any explanation. Fancy Farms paid Sullivan $5.50 per unit for the fancy zukes. The Market Report established a per unit price of $8.00 for the fancy zukes which is more in line with the market than is the $5.50 per unit paid by Fancy Farms. The amount due Sullivan from the Grower Statement dated December 23, 1994, is: Lot No. 2313-116-38: $6.00 per unit x 18 units (Market Report) = $ 108.00 Lot No. 2313-116-37: $8.00 per unit x 27 units (Market Report) = $ 216.00 Total owed Sullivan = $ 324.00 Less: Ten percent commission = $ 32.40 Amount received by Sullivan = $ 211.50 Net due Sullivan = $ 80.10 The net amount owed to Sullivan by Fancy Farms: From Grower Statements dated: November 25, 1994 $ 131.30 December 7, 1994 $ 282.20 December 15, 1994 $ 148.65 December 23, 1994 $ 80.10 Total owed to Sullivan $ 642.25
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent Fancy Farms Sales, Inc. be ordered to pay Petitioner Wayne Sullivan the sum of $642.25. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3015A The parties elected not to file any proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Wayne Sullivan 49 Myrtle Bush Lane Venus, Florida 33960 James A. Crocker Qualified Representative Fancy Farms Sales, Inc. 1305 W. Dr. M. L. King, Jr., Blvd. Plant City, Florida 33564-9006 Gulf Insurance Company Legal Department 4600 Fuller Drive Irving, Texas 75038-6506
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
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Lee Ann Burgess was employed on March 17, 1975, as the Administrator of the Domestic Tourism Section, Division of Tourism, Department of Commerce. During her initial years of employment, Edward J. Trombetta was the Secretary of the DOC. He remained in that position from February of 1975 through December 31, 1977. The DOC then had several Divisions--one of which was the Division of Tourism--and these Divisions were broken down into Bureaus which were, in turn, composed of various Sections. Mr. Trombetta was of the opinion that only himself, his Assistant Secretary and his Division Directors were policy-makers within the DOC and that other employees simply implemented that policy. According to Mr. Trombetta, policy-making deals with personnel matters and implementation of the budget appropriated by the Legislature. Decision- making and policy-making emanated from the Secretary's office. While the Section heads or administrators might recommend ideas which would lead to "policy," they had no authority to "establish" the course of policy for their respective Divisions or Sections, according to Mr. Trombetta. The December, 1976 job description for the position of Administrator of the Domestic Tourism Section included, in part, the following duties and responsibilities: -- being a working supervisor over a majority of the promotional activities of the division -- creating, directing and supervising the approved promotional and selected advertising programs. "He must not only plan the programs, he must budget each one as well as the entire Domestic Development Section." -- recommending new markets and objectives to the Division Director and advising on all aspects of promotion, utilizing research statistical information to support such recommendations and advice -- directing a staff of promotion specialists -- maintaining a constant contact with the higher echelons of the Department of Commerce as well as other government agencies and the private sector of the travel industry -- handling personnel both within the confines of the office and those that are required to be at great distances from the office in following through on the projects -- working with publishers of travel oriented publications in creation of special sections and issues on facets of Florida tourism -- initiating and carrying through promotions with department stores, other chain stores, industry, common carriers, resort areas and many others -- recommending and coordinating publicity in conjunction with the other areas of the Department of Commerce -- representing the Division at conferences of national, regional travel organi- zations -- creating and implementing special events which insure Florida's continued growth as a site for major sports activities -- developing and recommending advertising programs which illuminate Florida's sports attractions -- preparing, editing and distributing publications on promotional tourism activities and information on sports activities and facilities within Florida. During petitioner's tenure as Administrator of the Domestic Tourism Section, she was directly responsible to her Bureau Chief, Ron Miller. At the beginning of each fiscal year, she submitted for Mr. Miller's approval a listing of appropriate functions and trade shows to attend for that year. She submitted a requested budget. On occasion, Mr. Miller would discuss with her which projects or functions would need to be rejected because of the availability of funding. All promotional functions and long-term commitments had to be approved by Bureau Chief Miller. Petitioner could not expend money without prior approval and did not feel that she had the authority to commit funds, resources or time without prior approval from her Bureau Chief. She perceived that her authority was limited to the implementation of preapproved promotional programs and functions. Once a program was approved, it was her responsibility to create a theme for that program. Her decision as to who should attend certain programs or promotions was occasionally overridden by her Bureau Chief. During petitioner's tenure, the Domestic Tourism Section was composed of an administrator, a secretary and two promotional specialists, and conducted approximately 19 to 21 promotions per year. The goal of the DOC's Division of Tourism is to increase the number of visitors and to create more trade in Florida on an annual basis. When Sidney Levin became the Secretary of the DOC in March of 1979, he contemplated a reorganization and expansion of the Division of Tourism. He anticipated that the Division would obtain a greatly increased staff and an accelerated program in the tourism sales department. It was Mr. Levin's concept that, the three section heads were, as known in the business world, "sales managers" and that an extensive marketing plan would be developed for the Division of Tourism. The three "sales managers or section heads were to be in the areas of domestic sales, international sales and convention sales. (Later, a Latin American sales section was created.) The persons occupying these positions were responsible for the management of those sections and were to be active in the creation of a marketing plan for the entire Division. The majority of the work accomplished on the marketing plan was to come from the various sections, and the section heads would have the responsibility for that function. The section heads were to generate the ideas for the overall plan, to determine what was possible and what was not possible and then to implement the plan once approved. During Secretary Levin's tenure with the DOC, the head of each Department was permitted to designate ten "policy-making" positions as exempt from the Career Service System subject to the approval of the Department of Administration. Section 110.205(2)(h), Florida Statutes (1979) (now Section 110.205(2)(i)). In accordance with his reorganization and expansion plans for the Division of Tourism, Secretary Levin, by letter dated December 12, 1979, requested approval from Secretary Nevin Smith. DOA, to exempt from the Career Service System the positions of Administrator of Tourism Development (position number 00063) and Administrator of International Tourism (position number 00067). Two other positions not relevant to the issues herein were also requested to be exempt as policy-making positions. By letter dated December 14, 1979, Secretary Smith informed Secretary Levin that the four requested positions had been exempt from the Career Service as policy-making positions. [The convention sales section of the Division of Tourism was not yet created. When that position was later created, a request for a similar Career Service exemption was granted.] At the time of the requested exemption of petitioner's position, the only written guideline in existence as to a "policy-making" position was contained in a memorandum dated July 1, 1974, to all Department heads from former DOA Secretary L. K. Ireland, Jr. That memorandum states that the DOA's Division of Personnel defined a policy-making position as one which sets a definite course of action for the unit for which the position is responsible (i.e., office, bureau, division, department) which is unit-wide in effect and will guide and determine present and future decisions of that unit measured in a time span of no less than six months. Although not contained in written form in December of 1979, it was also the DOA's policy to refuse to approve exemptions for positions which directly reported to or were responsible to a position occupied by a Career Service employee. The position formerly occupied by petitioner (position number 00063) is now entitled Administrator of Domestic Sales of the Division of Tourism. The present incumbent, Glenn Couvillon, reports to the Bureau Chief of Sales and Promotions who reports to the Director of the Division of Tourism. Mr. Couvillon was formerly a promotional specialist under the supervision of petitioner Burgess. His present duties include the preparation and submission of a marketing plan for his section to his Bureau Chief for approval and, after such approval, the implementation and staffing of different promotions in that plan. Other than the enlargement of the Domestic Sales Section, and the expansion of its budget and programs, Mr. Couvillon does not feel that the role of the section administrator has changed much since he assumed that position. The Domestic Sales Section now has a staff of eleven, including seven Development Representatives, and does approximately 54 promotions a year. The 1980 job description for position number 00063 does not differ in significant respect from the 1976 job description for that position. The differences are primarily in the usage of terminology, and not in the description of duties or responsibilities. According to Nevin Smith, the Secretary of DOA since July of 1979, the principal criteria for determining whether a position is "policy-making" has always been the same. That criteria is whether or not the position-holder plays a key advisory role to the Department head. An expert in the area of personnel management and administration, Lee Breyer, defines a "policy-maker" as "an individual who can, with a high degree of success, be able to influence the direction of a particular level of that organization." In February of 1981, the DOA promulgated a rule which defines the policies applicable to exemption of policy-making positions. Rule 22K-16.02, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: A position is policy-making if the incumbent's primary responsibility is the managing of a major function or the rendering of management advice to Senior Management level administrative authority. Such position can be established as policy-making only if located in the top managerial levels of a department, division, or bureau (or comparable level) and if it is typified by broad responsibility for policy implementation and extensive participation in the development of a department's goals.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that position number 00063 is a policy-making position eligible for exemption from the Career Service System in accordance with Section 110.205(2)(i), Florida Statutes. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward S. Jaffry, Esquire HORNE, REODES, JAFFRY, HORNE & CARROUTH Post Office Drawer 1140 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Don W. Davis, Esquire Department of Commerce 510H Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David V Kerns and Daniel C. Brown, General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stuart Edgerly Secretary Department of Commerce 510C Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith Secretary Department of Administration Room 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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, Edmund Houze, has filed a claim against the bond for $348.00 alleging that Passport failed to perform on certain contracted services. In response to a promotion run by an Augusta, Georgia merchant, petitioner filled out a card for a "free" trip to the Bahamas, plus four days accommodation in Daytona Beach and Orlando. Thereafter, he was contacted by Caribbean Sun Tours (CST), a telemarketeer operating out of Tampa, Florida. During his conversation with a CST representative, petitioner was told that if he could not confirm his requested travel dates, his money would be refunded. On November 6, 1990, petitioner agreed to buy a travel certificate entitling the holder to a five-day, four-night vacation package to the Bahamas, plus four nights lodging in Florida. The certificate cost $399.00, and petitioner sent a check in that amount to CST. The certificate issued by CST carried the name, address and logo of Passport. At hearing, Passport contended that CST had "got hold" of some of Passport's travel certificates from another telemarketeer and was reselling them to travelers without Passport's authorization. Passport conceded, however, that it honored all certificates sold by CST, including petitioner's certificate. Accordingly, it is found that CST was acting as an agent on behalf of Passport. On June 1, 1991, petitioner sent Passport a deposit in the amount of $140.00 with his reservation for the cruise and land accommodations. He selected August 5-8, 1991, as the dates on which he desired to travel to Florida. He was told by Passport that the dates were unavailable. Further efforts by petitioner to find an acceptable date for travel were unsuccessful. At that point, and consistent with the representation made by Passport's agent, petitioner requested a refund of his money. He also filed a complaint with the Department. Passport agreed to refund petitioner the $140.00 deposit. Passport has denied liability for the remaining $348.00 on the theory that CST never sent it the money, and that company has gone out of business.
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 that he be paid $348.00. 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: Edmund Houze Route 1, Box 481 Reidsville, Georgia 30453 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 Petitioner was born in 1936. While on active duty in the United States Navy in 1955, he suffered an injury which subsequently led to the amputation of his left foot. When discharged from the Navy, his disability was rated by the Veterans Administration (VA) at 40 percent. Subsequent problems with the stump of the left leg, arthritis, and a spinal fusion led to VA disability increases, which disability rating at time of hearing was 100 percent. Petitioner applied for work with Delta Air Lines, Respondent, in 1966 and was employed as a reservations agent in Chicago. At this time his VA disability rating was 70 percent. In 1967 Petitioner, at his own request, was transferred by Respondent to Tampa, Florida. At this time Petitioner was able to move around the bay in which he worked with and without his crutches. In September 1979 Petitioner was hospitalized for stump revision and remained in an off-duty status until June 1980 when he returned to his position with Delta. At this time Petitioner carried out his duties as a reservation agent in a wheelchair. Following his return to work in 1981 Petitioner's performance of duty was marginal. Petitioner takes prescribed medication for pain. On one occasion the medication adversely affected his ability to perform his duties satisfactorily and he was told by his supervisor not to take medication at work. The doctor changed this prescription from 1-100 mg. daily to 4-25 mg. daily and Petitioner continued his medication as prescribed without further problems. On October 28, 1981, Petitioner was examined by Dr. Frazier, one of the physicians used by Delta for its employees. The purpose of this examination was to evaluate Petitioner's physical condition for continued employment. Report of this examination is contained in Exhibit 5 wherein Dr. Frazier concluded that Petitioner "has several progressive disabilitating diseases, that combined with his psychological state make him unemployable for Delta Air Lines. I would recommend because of his depression, amputation, hypertension, osteo-arthritis and spinal fusion problems that he be retired on disability." Respondent does not have a retirement for physical disability status. In lieu thereof it has short-term disability benefits and long-term disability benefits. Long-term disability benefits are calculated as a percentage of the employee's basic monthly salary less social security benefits the employee receives. Petitioner was in a long-term benefit status while recovering from stump revision in 1979-1980. Following Delta's receipt of the report of Dr. Frazier, Petitioner was sent home in a short-term disability status while the report was evaluated. Respondent subsequently advised Petitioner that he was qualified for sedentary work and directed him to return to his position with Delta Air Lines. Petitioner returned to work around June 1982 as a reservations agent. Fifteen or twenty reservation agents work in a "bay" where each has access to a telephone and computer terminal. These agents handle all reservation requests via telephone with no visual contact with the customers. They work an eight-hour shift with two 10 minute breaks and one-half hour off for lunch. While operating from his wheelchair, Petitioner usually took a station near the entrance to the bay which provided easier access for the wheelchair than a station farther down into the bay. He made no complaints about access to his station to Delta supervisory personnel. Reservation agents' telephone communications are monitored by supervisors on an intermittent basis to ensure the agent is carrying out his duties in a satisfactory manner and is providing proper information to the customers. In June 1972 Petitioner was placed on three months' probation. In September 1972 this probationary period was extended an additional three months. In July 1974 Petitioner was again placed on probation and given a "final chance" letter. In October 1977 he was given a letter for poor performance. Petitioner acknowledged that several times before 1982 he had been disciplined by Respondent but not fired. In December 1982 Charles Cortright, a retired architect, called the Tampa office of Delta Air Lines to get information on a flight to and from the West Coast interrupted with cruises while on the West Coast. Specifically, Cortright wanted to fly to Seattle, take a ferry trip to Alaska, perhaps two more sea cruises from West Coast ports, take a train from Seattle to San Francisco, and fly back to Tampa from San Francisco. He was referred to Petitioner, who quoted him a price of $278.00 on the air portion of this trip, but, since Petitioner did not think the cruises could be arranged by Delta, referred Cortright to a travel agency. Petitioner testified that he referred Cortright to three travel agencies located in the vicinity of Cortright's residence and did not specify the agency at which Petitioner's wife worked. Although Cortright testified that he was not referred to any one by name and did not know that Petitioner's wife worked at Tri-Cities Travel Agency, he went to Tri-Cities and his reservations were made by Malinda, who, in fact, was Petitioner's wife. It is likely that Cortright did not know that Malinda was Petitioner's wife, but it is believed that Cortright was told by Petitioner to ask for Malinda and he did so. When the airline tickets arrived at the travel agency, Cortright was advised by the agency the price of the air fare was $302.00. Cortright then, on December 14, 1982, called Delta and asked to speak to Petitioner to inquire about the difference in the fares quoted by Petitioner and the cost of the tickets at the travel agency, and to get the fare guaranteed that was quoted by Petitioner. At the time this call was received by another agent, Jennings King, King was being monitored by his supervisor, Carolyn Corvette. In this phone conversation Cortright said he had spoken to Petitioner two times before, that he went to the agency to which he had been directed by Petitioner, that he spoke to Malinda as directed by Petitioner, and that he was charged a higher fare than was quoted by Petitioner. Corvette had the call transferred to the customer service desk and authorized guarantee of the lower fare quoted. She promptly prepared a memo of the incident to Arthur Arden, Chief Reservation Supervisor (Exhibit 7). Arden called Cortright, who confirmed that Petitioner had directed him to Tri-Cities Travel Agency. Arden extracted from Delta's computer the reservation made for Cortright which disclosed the reservation was made by Malinda at Tri-Cities (Exhibit 8). Knowing that Malinda was Petitioner's wife, Arden, on December 15, told Petitioner that he was suspended from work and would be recommended for dismissal. On December 15, 1982, Arden signed a memo to Harry Dean, Delta's Regional Manager at Tampa, recommending that Petitioner be terminated (Exhibit 6). Dean concurred, sent the memo to Delta's Atlanta office, and Petitioner was fired. All reservation agent trainees are told that they should make every effort to arrange all of the transportation needs of the customers through Delta Air Lines, including tours requiring other modes of transport than air; and that they should never refer a customer to a specific travel agency. If a travel agency's services are needed by the customer, the customer should be referred to the yellow pages of the phone book to select a travel agency. This same information is contained in the Standard Practices Manual, which is available to all reservation agents. The reason for this rule is to eliminate, insofar as possible, conflicts of interest and to refrain from alienating some travel agents by appearing to favor other travel agents. This could create a serious problem for the air lines and is taken very seriously by air line company management. Petitioner's testimony that he did not refer Cortright to Tri-Cities Travel Agency and that he never referred a customer to a specific travel agency was rebutted by Betty Maseda, a fellow reservations agent who frequently sat alongside Petitioner at work and on several occasions overheard Petitioner giving specific instructions to customers on exactly how to get to Tri-Cities Travel Agency and to ask for Malinda. Ms. Maseda considers herself a good friend of Petitioner and did not volunteer this information to Respondent until after Petitioner had been fired.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Charles Simon violated subsections 475.25(1)(b) and (f), Florida Statutes (1985) by pleading guilty to crimes involving moral turpitude or fraudulent and dishonest dealing, i.e. grand theft and trafficking in stolen property by reissuing and refunding airline tickets without making payment for them.
Findings Of Fact Charles Simon was at the times material to this proceeding licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida holding license number 0123689. The last license was issued to him as a broker at 90 Beacon Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33135. On about October 15, 1986, Mr. Simon pled guilty to six counts of an indictment alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act), grand theft and trafficking in stolen property for issuing and refunding of airline tickets without making payment for them. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Mr. Simon was placed on community control for a period of twenty-four months to be followed by a period of probation of eight years, and he was ordered to pay $50,000 in restitution and court costs. By letter dated October 9, 1986, Respondent informed the Commission of having pleaded guilty to a felony. By letter dated January 6, 1987, Mr. Simon wrote again to the Commission, stated that he had received no reply to his letter of October 9, 1986 and enclosed a carbon copy of the October 9, 1986 letter. The Commission never received his first (October 9, 1986) letter, although it did receive a copy of it when attached to the January 6, 1987 letter. The Department relies solely upon the records of the conviction to make its case. It did not dispute Mr. Simon's explanation of the events underlying his guilty plea. Mr. Simon's version of the events is accepted, in part because his testimony was not contested by the Department, and in part because the explanation is plausible. In May of 1983, Mr. Simon's wife owned a travel agency in Dade County. His real estate office was located in the same suite of offices. While clerical employees of the travel agency would sometimes perform work for the real estate office they were wholly separate businesses. Mr. Simon was not an officer or employee of the travel agency and received no money from it. In May, 1983 Mr. Simon's wife put the agency up for sale. Travel agencies are approved by the Air Traffic Corporation (ATC) to write airline tickets on generic ticket stock if they meet certain requirements. ATC affiliation is important to a travel agency because it makes accounting to airlines for tickets sold much simpler. ATC serves as a clearinghouse; at the end of the week a travel agency sends one check to ATC for all tickets written during the week. ATC separates the billings according to airline, and writes one check to each airline for all tickets sold by the agents belonging to ATC. Blank ticket stock is valuable and purchasers must qualify through ATC to buy a travel agency that is an ATC member. Otherwise an untrustworthy new owner could write tickets out, collect money and never pay the ATC who in turn would not be able to pay the airlines. Mrs. Simon was familiar with people who expressed an interest in purchasing her agency, but they asked her not to tell ATC of the sale. When notified of the impending sale ATC would investigate the qualifications of the proposed new owners, and their previous employer or present employer would be contacted by ATC. The potential buyers were currently working at another travel agency. They wanted to buy Mrs. Simon's agency and move their clients to their new agency (Mrs. Simon's agency). They did not want to tip off their present employer of their intentions by having ATC contact the present employer. Mrs. Simon agreed to withhold notification to ATC to facilitate the sale of the travel agency. After the ownership of the travel agency was transferred and most of the purchase price had been paid, Mrs. Simon was informed that the new owners had ticket stock from other travel agencies at the agency she had sold. Although this is not a violation of any statute, it violates ATC rules and alerted Mrs. Simon that something was wrong. She realized that the reason the purchasers did not want to notify the ATC of the transfer was that they were engaging in a "bust out" of the agency, i.e., issuing valid airline tickets without receiving payment for them. The tickets would then be returned to the airlines for cash refunds (although they had never been paid for) or resold to others at less than their face value. Ultimately, ATC revoked the agency's authority to issue tickets, but by then the owners had defrauded the airlines of many thousands of dollars. Mrs. Simon panicked and Mr. Simon agreed to try to handle the situation. Instead of reporting the matter to the police Mr. Simon tried to cover it up so that Mrs. Simon would not be implicated in wrongdoing. Precisely what Mr. Simon did in his attempt to keep his wife from being implicated in the purchasers' scheme was not explained at the hearing. Those individuals involved in the "bust out" were ultimately arrested and convicted. Mr. Simon was also charged because of his involvement with the sale after Mrs. Simon discovered the purchasers' scheme. Under the sentencing guidelines the charges made against him would have called for a sentence of six years in jail. The state attorney's office agreed to two years of community control, eight years probation and $50,000 restitution to the airlines, if Mr. Simon would plead guilty to the charges rather than require a trial; the state attorney also agreed that no charges would be filed against Mr. Simon's wife in return for his guilty plea. The state attorney's office further agreed to a withholding of adjudication of guilt so that Mr. Simon's real estate license would not be affected. Based on 1) the cost of going through a trial to defend himself and potentially another legal proceeding for the defense of his wife (which would exceed $50,000) and, 2) his erroneous belief that a guilty plea with a withholding of adjudication would not affect his real estate license, Mr. Simon agreed to the state attorney's offer as being in his best interest even though he believed that he had done nothing illegal. Since that time Mr. Simon's community control has been terminated and he has been placed on regular probation, which merely requires a once a month report to a probation officer which can be done by mail. It has also been agreed that Mr. Simon may return to England to live. The lightness of the sentence and the reduction of the period of community control corroborates Mr. Simon's argument that the state attorney's office knew that he had not been involved in the fraudulent plan to "bust out" his wife's travel agency, although he was not entirely forthcoming when the purchaser's plan was discovered.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Mr. Simon guilty of violation of subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes as charged in Count I of the administrative complaint and guilty of violation of subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes as charged in Count II of the administrative complaint and that the real estate broker's license held by Mr. Simon be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1987. APPENDIX The following are my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Rulings on Proposals of the Petitioner's: Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Simon 90 Beacon Boulevard Miami, Florida 33135 Mr. Charles Simon 10435 S.W. 76th Street Miami, Florida 33173 James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Florida Real Estate Commission P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Florida Real Estate Commission P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
