The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent as a licensed citrus fruit dealer breached an agreement with Petitioner relating to the purchase of citrus fruit during the 1991-1992 shipping season and further whether the breach of such agreement constitutes a violation of the Florida Citrus Code for which the proceeds of the citrus fruit dealer's bond should be paid to Petitioner pursuant to section 601.66, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lykes Pasco, Inc., is a Florida corporation located in Pasco County, Florida, in the business of citrus fruit processing. Respondent, L & M Fruit Company, Inc., is a dissolved Florida corporation that formerly was in the business of selling and delivering citrus fruit. Jerry M. Mitchell was the past president of Respondent. During the 1991-1992 shipping season, Respondent was a licensed citrus fruit dealer in Florida. Co-Respondent, American Surety and Casualty Company, a registered surety company, during the 1991-1992 shipping season executed a citrus fruit dealer's bond to Respondent in the amount of $49,000 pursuant to the provisions of section 601.66, Florida Statutes. On or about September 20, 1991, Petitioner entered into an express written contract with Respondent for the sale and delivery of citrus fruit. Specifically, the contract provided for the sale and delivery of 35,000 boxes of early and midseason oranges at $0.85 pounds net delivered, and 35,000 boxes of valencia oranges at $1.05 pounds net delivered. The contract was executed by Tom O'Neal on behalf of Petitioner, and by Jerry M. Mitchell on behalf of Respondent. Of the 35,000 boxes of early and midseason oranges provided for in the contract, Respondent delivered 21,706 boxes leaving a shortage of 13,294 boxes. Of the 35,000 boxes of valencia oranges provided in the contract, Respondent delivered 1,180 boxes, leaving a shortage of 33,820 boxes. Because of the Respondent's breach of contract Petitioner was required to purchase fruit solids on the open market to cover its business needs. Petitioner incurred costs in the amount of $91,980.53 to replace the fruit which Respondent failed to deliver under the terms of the contract. In addition to the costs incurred by the Petitioner in replacing the fruit, Petitioner also made an advancement of funds against the contract to the Respondent. The funds advanced to Respondent which have not been repaid nor applied against the fruit delivered total $15,567.55. The damages incurred by the Petitioner resulting from Respondent's breach of contract total $107,548.08.
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 adjudicating that the amount of indebtedness owed to Petitioner from Respondent is $107,548.08, that Respondent shall have thirty (30) days in which to satisfy such indebtedness, and that upon failure of the respondent to make satisfaction of this claim, any remaining proceeds of the citrus fruit dealer's bond executed by Co-Respondent shall be distributed to Petitioner. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of May, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 8th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX Petitioner' Proposed Findings: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are adopted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Commissioner Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, P1-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Patrick T. Lennon, Esquire H. Vance Smith, Esquire Attorneys for Lykes Pasco, Inc. Post Office Box 1531 Tampa, Florida 33601 Mr. Jerry M. Mitchell, President L & M Fruit Company, Inc. Post Office Box 1048 Bartow, Florida 33880 F. J. Manuel, Jr. Sears & Manual, P.A. Attorneys for American Surety & Casualty Company 511 North Ferncreek Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 Clerk Department of Citrus Post Office Box 148 Lakeland, Florida 33802-0148 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issues presented are whether Respondent, George Mason Citrus, Inc. (Mason), owes Petitioner $10,000 for citrus fruit that Mason purchased from Petitioner and, if so, whether the surety is liable for any deficiency in payment from Mason.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation licensed by the Department as a “citrus fruit dealer,” within the meaning of Subsection 601.03(8), Florida Statutes (2005) (dealer).1 The business address for Petitioner is 1103 Southeast Lakeview Drive, Sebring, Florida 33870. Mason is a Florida corporation licensed by the Department as a citrus fruit dealer. The business address for Mason is 140 Holmes Avenue, Lake Placid, Florida 33852. Western is the surety for Mason pursuant to bond number 42292005 issued in the amount of $100,000 (the bond). The term of the bond is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. Petitioner conducts business in Highlands County, Florida, as a dealer and as a “broker” defined in Subsection 601.03(3). In relevant part, Petitioner purchases white grapefruit (grapefruit) for resale to others, including Mason. Mason conducts business in Highlands County as either an “agent,” “broker,” or “handler” defined in Subsections 601.03(2), (3), and (23). On January 31, 2003, Mason contracted with Petitioner to purchase grapefruit from Petitioner pursuant to Fruit Contract number 03-307 (the contract). Mason drafted the contract. The terms of the contract require Petitioner to sell grapefruit to Mason for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 “crop years.” The 2003 crop year began in the fall of 2002 and ended at the conclusion of the spring harvest in 2003. The 2004 and 2005 crop years began in the fall of 2003 and 2004 and ended in the spring of 2004 and 2005, respectively. Only the 2005 crop year is at issue in this proceeding. The contract required Petitioner to deliver grapefruit to a person designated by Mason. Mason designated Peace River Citrus Products, Inc. (Peace River), in Arcadia, Florida, for delivery of the grapefruit at issue. Mason was required by the terms of a Participation Agreement with Peace River to deliver 30,000 boxes of grapefruit to Peace River during the 2005 crop year. In an effort to satisfy its obligation to Peace River, Mason entered into the contract with Petitioner for an amount of grapefruit described in the contract as an “Approximate Number of Boxes” that ranged between 12,000 and 14,000. Petitioner delivered only 2,128 boxes of grapefruit to Peace River. The production of grapefruit was significantly decreased by three hurricanes that impacted the area during the 2005 crop year. The parties agree that Mason owed Petitioner $19,070.03 for the delivered boxes of grapefruit. The amount due included a portion of the rise in value over the base purchase price in the contract caused by increases due to market conditions and participation pay out after the parties executed the contract (the rise).2 On or about October 26, 2005, Mason mailed Petitioner a check for $9,070.03. The transmittal letter for the check explained the difference between the payment of $9,070.03 and the amount due of $19,070.03. Mason deducted $10,000 from the $19,070.03 due Petitioner, in part, to cover the cost of grapefruit Mason purchased from other dealers or growers to make up the deficiency in grapefruit delivered by Petitioner (cover). The $10,000 sum also includes interest Mason claims for the cost of cover and Mason's claim for lost profits. Petitioner claims that Mason is not entitled to deduct lost profits and interest from the amount due Petitioner. If Mason were entitled to deduct interest, Petitioner alleges that Mason calculated the interest incorrectly. The larger issue between the parties is whether Mason is entitled to deduct cover charges from the amount due Petitioner. If Mason were not entitled to cover the deficiency in delivered boxes of grapefruit, Mason would not be entitled to interest on the cost of cover and lost profits attributable to the deficiency. The parties agree that resolution of the issue of whether Mason is entitled to cover the deficiency in delivered boxes of grapefruit turns on a determination of whether the contract was a box contract or a production contract. A box contract generally requires a selling dealer such as Petitioner to deliver a specific number of boxes, regardless of the source of grapefruit, and industry practice permits the purchasing dealer to cover any deficiency. A production contract generally requires the selling dealer to deliver an amount of grapefruit produced by a specific source, and industry practice does not permit the purchasing dealer to cover any deficiency. The contract is an ambiguous written agreement. The contract expressly provides that it is a "Fruit Purchase Contract" and a "delivered in" contract but contains no provision that it is either a box or production contract. The contract is silent with respect to the right to cover. Relevant terms in the contract evidence both a box contract and a production contract. Like the typical box contract, the contract between Mason and Petitioner prescribes a number of boxes, specifically no less than 12,000, that are to be delivered pursuant to the contract. However, the typical box contract does not identify the number of boxes to be delivered as "Approximate No. of Boxes" that ranges between 12,000 and 14,000 boxes. Unlike a production contract, the contract does not identify a specific grove as the source of the required grapefruit. Best practice in the industry calls for a production contract to designate the grove by name as well as the number of acres and blocks. However, industry practice does not require a production contract to identify a specific grove as the source of grapefruit. In practice, Mason treated another contract that Mason drafted with a party other than Petitioner as a production contract even though the contract did not identify a specific grove as the source of grapefruit. The absence of a force majure clause in the contract may evidence either type of contract.3 A box contract typically requires the selling dealer to deliver the agreed boxes of grapefruit regardless of weather events, unless stated otherwise in the contract. However, the absence of such a clause may also be consistent with a production contract because "acts of God" are inherent in a production contract. Such acts, including hurricanes, necessarily limit grapefruit production, and a production contract obligates the selling dealer to deliver only the amount of grapefruit produced. The contract between Petitioner and Mason did not contain a penalty provision for failure to deliver the prescribed boxes of grapefruit (box penalty). The absence of a box penalty in the contract evidences a production contract. The contract identifies Petitioner as the "Grower." A grower typically enters into a production contract. A box contract does not limit the source of grapefruit to be delivered, and the selling dealer in a box contract may obtain grapefruit from anywhere in the state. The contract between Petitioner and Mason limits the source of grapefruit to grapefruit grown in Highlands County, Florida. Mason knew that Petitioner sold only grapefruit from groves in Highlands County, Florida, identified in the record as the Clagget Taylor groves. During the 2003 and 2004 crop years, Petitioner sold only grapefruit from the Clagget Taylor groves. Mason received trip tickets and other documentation related to the delivery of no less than 24,000 boxes of grapefruit, all from the Clagget Taylor groves. The boxes of grapefruit delivered during the 2005 crop year came only from the Clagget Taylor groves. Mason received documentation showing the grapefruit came from the Clagget Taylor groves. Ambiguous written agreements are required by judicial decisions discussed in the Conclusions of Law to be construed against the person who drafted the agreement. Mason drafted an ambiguous agreement with Petitioner. The agreement must be construed against Mason as a production contract. Mason owes Petitioner $10,000 for the delivered grapefruit during the 2005 crop year. The terms of the bond make Western liable for any deficiency in payment from Mason.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order directing Mason to pay $10,000 to Petitioner, and, in accordance with Subsections 601.61 and 601.65, requiring Western to pay over to the Department any deficiency in payment by Mason. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 22nd day of August, 2007.
The Issue What is the amount owed by D. L. Scotto and Company, Inc., d/b/a Tuxedo Fruit Company, to Thomas E. Davis, Inc., for Valencia oranges purchased in January, April, and May 2013?
Findings Of Fact A "dealer in agricultural products" is defined as a person, partnership, corporation, or other business entity, "engaged within this state in the business of purchasing, receiving, or soliciting agricultural products from the producer . . . for resale or processing for sale " § 604.15(2), Fla. Stat. (2013).1/ Respondent is licensed as a dealer in agricultural products. Petitioner is a "producer" for purposes of sections through 604.34, Florida Statutes. See § 604.15(9), Fla. Stat. (defining "producer" as "any producer of agricultural products produced in the state"). Contract #077 On January 25, 2013, Petitioner and Respondent entered into citrus fruit contract #077 wherein Respondent, for the price of $9.50 per box, agreed to purchase 5,000 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Cock Pen grove. Petitioner delivered, and Respondent accepted, 2,925 boxes of the promised oranges. To date, Respondent has only paid Petitioner for 1,962 ($9.50 x 1,962 = $18,639) boxes of oranges from the Cock Pen grove. Contract #078 On January 25, 2013, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a second citrus fruit contract (#078) wherein Respondent, for the price of $9.50 per box, agreed to purchase 4,500 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Patrick grove. Petitioner delivered, and Respondent accepted, 2,988 boxes of the promised oranges. To date, Respondent has only paid Petitioner for 792 ($9.50 x 792 = $7,524) boxes of oranges from the Patrick grove. Contract #M012 On April 25, 2013, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a third citrus fruit contract (#M012) wherein Respondent, for the price of $11.00 per box, agreed to purchase 1,200 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Johnson grove and 1,500 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Allegato grove. Petitioner delivered, and Respondent accepted, 1,161 boxes of the promised oranges from the Johnson grove and 1,296 boxes of oranges from the Allegato grove. To date, Respondent has not paid Petitioner for the oranges received from the Johnson and Allegato groves. Contract #M013 On May 2, 2013, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a fourth citrus fruit contract (#M013) wherein Respondent, for the price of $11.00 per box, agreed to purchase 1,500 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Tommy Ann grove. Petitioner delivered, and Respondent accepted, 1,674 boxes of the promised oranges from the Tommy Ann grove. To date, Respondent has not paid Petitioner for the oranges received from the Tommy Ann grove. Respondent's defense Each of the citrus fruit contracts at issue provides that the oranges "must be merchantable for fresh usage at the time of harvest and delivery." Respondent claims that significant quantities of the oranges that were received from Petitioner were not merchantable for fresh usage at the time of harvest and delivery. In reviewing the documentary evidence presented by both parties, it is evident that Petitioner's oranges were harvested and delivered to Respondent during the months of January through May 2013. From this period forward to the date of the final hearing held herein, Respondent never informed Petitioner that there was an issue with the merchantability of the oranges. Instead, whenever Petitioner contacted Respondent about the status of payment for the oranges, Respondent repeatedly assured Petitioner that payment was forthcoming. Respondent's testimony regarding the alleged compromised merchantability of the oranges that he received from Petitioner is not credible.
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 finding that D. L. Scotto and Company, Inc., d/b/a Tuxedo Fruit Company, is indebted to Thomas E. Davis, Inc., in the amount of $75,501.50 (includes filing fee) for the balance due for the oranges it purchased from Petitioner on January 25, April 25, and May 2, 2013. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Based on the factual stipulations and the deposition testimony of Mr. Alfred Poucher, I hereby make the following findings of fact: During the 1982-1983 citrus fruit season Congen delivered various varieties of citrus fruit to Blue Prize. Congen is a grower as well as a processor, and the fruit which was delivered to Blue Prize was owned by Congen. During the 1982-1983 citrus season Blue Prize operated a fresh fruit packing house. The citrus fruit referred to in the preceding paragraph was delivered pursuant to an oral contract negotiated between Jack Neitzke on behalf of Congen and Alfred Poucher on behalf of Blue Prize. Neitzke served as general manager of Congen. Poucher served as president of Blue Prize. The contract provided that Congen would deliver citrus fruit to Blue Prize on an account sales basis and that Blue Prize would pay for the fruit in the following manner: For Novas delivered to Blue Prize by Congen and Packed by Blue Prize, Blue Prize agreed to pay an amount at least equal to the net return to Congen from its sale of Novas to A. S. Herlong during the same citrus season. Congen's sales to Herlong netted Congen $8.026 per packed box. For White Grapefruit delivered to Blue Prize by Congen, Blue Prize agreed to pay Congen the average net per box return Congen received during the same citrus season for White Grapefruit Congen sold for processing, inclusive of any applicable picking, roadside, and hauling charges incurred by Congen, for all field boxes delivered. The average return per box was $1.5475. For Temples, Hamlins, and Valencias delivered to Blue Prize by Congen, Blue Prize agreed to pay Congen for all field boxes delivered an amount at least equal to the average amount returned per box on the Citrus Belle processing plant seasonal pool. The Citrus Belle pool returned $.96 per pound of solids for early and mid-season fruit which includes Temples and Hamlins. The average pounds of solids per box for Temples was 6.1052, and the average pounds of solids per box for Hamlins was 5.4. The pool returned $1.10 per pound of solids for Valencias, and the average pounds of solids per box for Valencias was 6.0137. Congen agreed to give Blue Prize credit for all eliminations (fruit which could not be packed by Blue Prize as fresh fruit) which were either returned to Congen or which were sent to a processing plant and for which the proceeds from the processing plant were ultimately paid to Congen. The elimination credit was to be calculated according to the same formulae used by Congen to charge Blue Prize for the fruit. The Valencia eliminations totaled 4,038.63 pounds of solids. The Temple and Hamlin eliminations totaled 1,119.52 pounds of solids. The total elimination credit due Blue Prize was $5,517.23. During the 1982-1983 citrus season Congen delivered 5,920 field boxes of Novas, 920 field boxes of Temples, 1,380 field boxes of white Grapefruit, 120 field boxes of Hamlins, and 1,748 field boxes of Valencias to Blue Prize. 5,589 boxes of Novas, 682 boxes of Temples, 101 boxes of Hanlins, and 1,330 boxes of Valencias were packed. According to these figures and the agreed upon prices to be paid, Blue Prize owed Congen $44,857.31 for Novas which were packed, $5,462.769 for Temples which were delivered, $2,135.55 for white Grapefruit which were delivered, $622.080 for Hamlins which were delivered, and $11,597.753 for Valencias which were delivered. These amounts total $64,675.45. Blue Prize paid Congen $30,000 for the fruit delivered by Congen during the 1982-1983 citrus fruit season, and after giving Blue Prize credit for this amount and also giving Blue Prize credit for the eliminations and harvesting and trucking charges, the amount Blue Prize owes Congen is $25,278,86.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order concluding the Blue Prize Packers, Inc., is indebted to Congen Properties, Inc., in the total amount of $25,278.86, and ordering that the full amount of the debt be paid within 30 days from the date of the Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of March, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 15th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Richard Bates, Esquire Anderson & Rush 322 East Central Blvd. P.O. Box 2288 Orlando, Florida 32802 M. David Alexander, III, Esquire Post Office Box 2376 Bartow, Florida 33830 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 McDonald Insurance Agency, Inc. Post Office Box 940 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Blue Prize Packers, Inc. 1200 Highway 27, North Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Congen Properties, Inc. Post Office Box 847 Labelle, Florida 33935 Honorable Doyle A. Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent Delicious Citrus Packing, LLC (Respondent), as a citrus fruit dealer, has failed to pay Petitioner for citrus fruit, as required by section 601.64(4), Florida Statutes; and, if so, the amount that Respondent owes Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Citrus Fruit Dealer's License number 252, effective August 31, 2015, for the 2015-16 season. The surety is Respondent Platte River Insurance Company. During the 2015-16 season, Petitioner picked citrus fruit from the groves of various third parties and transported the fruit to Respondent, which cleaned, waxed, and graded the fruit prior to selling it to various retailers, primarily, it seems, in South Florida. During the 2014-15 season, Petitioner and Respondent entered into contracts covering their respective rights and obligations in connection with transactions identical to those set forth in the preceding paragraph. An example is a contract dated April 10, 2015, signed by Petitioner and Respondent, specifying that Petitioner would purchase from a named third party from a named portion of a grove approximately 2000 citrus fruit for a delivered price of $16 per box with payment due upon delivery. The contract provides that Petitioner makes no allowance for fruit not meeting Respondent's specifications because Respondent had examined and preapproved the fruit on the tree. The parties did not document their agreement during the 2015-16 season, but the conditions were identical, although the price per box decreased, as set forth below. As was their practice during the preceding season, prior to the purchase and delivery by Petitioner, representatives of both companies visited the grove with the fruit still on the tree, and Respondent's representative approved the fruit, so, again, the agreement permitted no allowances for nonconforming fruit. Petitioner produced trip tickets documenting the delivery of 791 boxes of citrus fruit--all oranges--from September 25, 2015, through October 24, 2015. At this point, representatives of Petitioner and Respondent met to discuss the price of the fruit. Respondent complained that the fruit was too expensive based on what it could charge its purchasers, so Petitioner went back to the grove owners and negotiated a reduction in price. On November 2, 2015, Petitioner agreed to reduce its price from an undisclosed price per box to $15.50 per box, so as to reduce the outstanding balance for the 7791 boxes already delivered to $120,760.50. At that time, Respondent paid $85,250.50, leaving a balance due of $35,510. The parties promptly resumed their business dealings. A trip ticket dated November 2, 2015, documented the delivery of 550 boxes, for which the agreed-upon price was the $15.50 that the parties had set for the previous deliveries. However, even this price proved too high for Respondent, so the next two trip tickets, dated November 3 and 4, 2015, for a total of 1072 boxes, were priced at $13.50 per box. At some point, Respondent made two payments totaling $8811, and Respondent processed other fruit for Petitioner, earning a total credit of $2486 to be applied to the outstanding balance. These transactions reduced the balance to $47,210, which is the amount that Respondent presently owes Petitioner. The finding in the preceding paragraph reduced Petitioner's claim by $7157. As shown on the invoice dated April 6, 2016, received into evidence as Petitioner Exhibit 5, this balance was carried forward from the 2014-15 season. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, this case is limited to the 2015-16 season due to the timing of the filing of the Complaint. The findings in the preceding paragraphs discredit the testimony of Respondent's witnesses as to bad fruit that could not be sold. First, Respondent bore the risk of fruit that could not be sold for any reason, including spoilage. Second, Respondent did not assert this complaint when it negotiated a new purchase price on November 2, 2015. Third, Respondent did not object to the series of invoices that Petitioner submitted to Respondent, culminating in the April 6 invoice. Fourth, the testimony of Respondent's owner was vague and confusing, but twice seemed to confirm the indebtedness.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order determining that Respondent has violated section 601.64(4) by failing to pay Petitioner the sum of $47,210 for citrus fruit that Petitioner sold to Respondent during the 2015-16 shipping season and fixing a reasonable time within which Respondent shall pay such sum to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Alan Parkinson, Bureau Chief Bureau of Mediation and Enforcement Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Rhodes Building, R-3 2005 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6500 (eServed) Emmitt King, Jr. KAD Harvesting and Hauling, LLC 850 South 21st Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Platte River Insurance Company Attn: Claims Department Post Office Box 5900 Madison, Wisconsin 53705-0900 Douglas A. Lockwood, Esquire Straughn & Turner, P.A. 255 Magnolia Avenue Southwest Post Office Box 2295 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 (eServed) Dwight Johnathan Rhodeback, Esquire Rooney & Rooney, P.A. 1517 20th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (eServed) Lorena Holley, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 (eServed) Honorable Adam Putnam Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether there is substantial justification or special circumstances to preclude Petitioner from receiving an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes (2017).1/
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence, written submissions from the parties following issuance of ALJ McKibben’s Final Order, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Section 381.986(8), Florida Statutes and the Proposed Rule Section 381.986(8), Florida Statutes, establishes a mechanism for the licensing of medical marijuana treatment centers (“MMTC”). The statute was amended in 2017 to provide, in pertinent part, that: (8) MEDICAL MARIJUANA TREATMENT CENTERS. (a) The department shall license medical marijuana treatment centers to ensure reasonable statewide accessibility and availability as necessary for qualified patients registered in the medical marijuana use registry and who are issued a physician certification under this section. * * * The department shall license as medical marijuana treatment centers 10 applicants that meet the requirements of this section, under the following parameters: [Previously denied applicants meeting certain requirements not relevant to the instant action.] [One applicant from a specific class pursuant to a federal lawsuit.] As soon as practicable, but no later than October 3, 2017, the department shall license applicants that meet the requirements of this section in sufficient numbers to result in 10 total licenses issued under this subparagraph, while accounting for the number of licenses issued under sub-subparagraphs a. and b. For up to two of the licenses issued under subparagraph 2., the department shall give preference to applicants that demonstrate in their applications that they own one or more facilities that are, or were, used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses and will use or convert the facility or facilities for the processing of marijuana. (emphasis added). The Proposed Rule was intended to implement the changes to section 381.986; but, where section 381.986(8)(a)3., uses the term “facility,” the Proposed Rule substitutes the term “property.” For instance, the Proposed Rule provides, in pertinent part, that: (1)(f) For applicants seeking preference for registration as a medical marijuana treatment center pursuant to ss. 381.986(8)(a)3., F.S., the applicant must provide evidence that: The property at issue currently is or was previously used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses. In order to demonstrate the property meets this criteria, the applicant may provide documentation that the applicant currently holds or has held a registration certificate pursuant to section 601.40, F.S. A letter from the Department of Citrus certifying that the property currently is or was previously used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses will be accepted as sufficient evidence; The applicant as an individual holds, in his or her name, or the applicant as an entity holds, in the legal name of the entity, the deed to property meeting the criteria set forth in subparagraph 1. above; and A brief explanation of how the property will be used for purposes of growing, processing, or dispensing medical marijuana if the applicant is selected for registration. * * * Subject matter experts will substantively and comparatively review, evaluate, and score applications using [the Scorecard incorporated by reference]. * * * (a)7.(b) Scores for each section of the application will be combined to create an applicant’s total score. The department shall generate a final ranking of the applicants in order of highest to lowest scores. . . . (c) In accordance with ss. 381.986(8)(a)3., F.S., the two highest scoring applicants that own one or more facilities that are, or were, used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses and will use or convert the facility or facilities for the processing of marijuana will receive an additional 35 points to their respective total score. Licenses will be awarded, subject to availability as set forth in ss. 381.986(8)(a)2. and 381.986(8)(a)4., F.S., based on the highest total score in the following manner: The highest scoring applicant that is a recognized member of Pigford or [African American Farmers Discrimination Litigation] will receive a license. The remaining highest scoring applicants, after the addition of the preference points for applicants pursuant to paragraph (7)(c) above, will receive licenses up to the statutory cap set forth in ss. 381.986(8)(a)2., F.S. The remaining highest scoring applications, after removing any preference points received under paragraph (7)(c), will receive licenses up to the statutory cap set forth in ss. 381.986(8)(a)4., F.S. (emphasis added). The Parties The Department is the state agency charged with implementing the Compassionate Medical Cannabis Act of 2014. See § 381.986, Fla. Stat. Del Favero has been incorporated since 1974 and has been primarily engaged in the business of growing orchids. At the time of the final hearing in this matter, Del Favero aspired to apply for licensure as a medical marijuana treatment center. After Senate Bill 8A became law and substantially rewrote section 381.986, Del Favero elected to seek the citrus preference described in section 381.986(8)(a)3. In order to accomplish that goal, Del Favero purchased the real property and facilities of a citrus processing business in Safety Harbor, Florida, for approximately $775,000. The purchase occurred prior to the Proposed Rule’s publication. Del Favero intends to convert the citrus processing facility located on the Safety Harbor property into a medical marijuana processing facility if Del Favero becomes a licensed MMTC. Pertinent Portions of ALJ McKibben’s Analysis In ruling that the Proposed Rule was invalid, ALJ McKibben made the following findings: The Legislature clearly intended to give a preference to applicants who “own . . . facilities that are, or were, used for canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus . . . and will use or convert the . . . facilities for the processing of medical marijuana.” The Legislature failed, however, to provide guidance by way of definitions. While the Legislature chose the words “facility or facilities” in the Preference Statute, the Department complicated the issue by using the word “property” for the most part, but also using the words “facility” and “facilities” at times. Favero contends that a property is much broader in scope than a facility, and the Department therefore exceeded its delegated legislative authority. The Department argues that facilities used to process citrus must be located on some property, obviously. But, facilities located on a property might be leased, so that the fee simple owner of the property is different from the leaseholder of that facility. Thus, if an applicant for a medical marijuana treatment center license wants to avail itself of the preference, it would need to own the facility. Whether that means the applicant must own the property on which the facility is located is not clear in the Preference Statute or in the Proposed Rule. The Department argues that the way to show ownership of a facility is by way of a deed to the property on which the facility is located. In fact, Favero will use a warranty deed to prove ownership of the facilities it purchased in order to obtain the preference. But if Favero purchased land on which citrus had been grown but not processed, i.e., if there had been no facilities on the land to can, concentrate or otherwise process the fruit, except in fresh fruit form, the preference would not apply. And if an applicant obtained a leasehold interest in a facility, it would not be able to “show ownership” by way of a deed to the property. The Preference Statute requires the applicant to convert the facility in order to gain the preference. It is unclear how a piece of unimproved property can be “converted” to another use; land is land. This begs the question of whether growing citrus on a piece of property, and then removing all the citrus trees in order to grow medical marijuana, is a “conversion” of a facility as contemplated by the Legislature. Neither the Preference Statute nor the Proposed Rule contain any definitional assistance to answer that question. An important question to be answered is whether the growing of citrus constitutes “processing” as alluded to by the Legislature. The Preference Statute provides no definition of the word. The Citrus Code (chapter 601, Florida Statutes) also does not define “processing,” but does describe a “processor” of citrus as: ‘[A]ny person engaged within this state in the business of canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing citrus fruit for market other than for shipment in fresh fruit form.” § 601.03(32), Fla. Stat. (Emphasis added) (sic). Processing must therefore mean something other than merely growing citrus and packing it up for shipment. That being the case, a property where citrus is grown that is “converted” to a property growing marijuana would not afford an applicant a preference. There must be some “facility” that is or has been used to process citrus, i.e., doing something more with the raw product, in order to constitute “processing.” Therefore, a “packinghouse,” i.e., “[a]ny building, structure, or place where citrus fruit is packed or otherwise prepared for market or shipment in fresh fruit form,” would not be engaged in “processing” citrus. See § 601.03(29), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). ALJ McKibben then made the following Conclusions of Law: In this instance, the Department interprets the statutory language concerning “facility or facilities” to include “property.” It is impossible to reconcile that interpretation, especially in light of the fact the Legislature contemplated conversion of the facilities. The Department’s interpretation is hereby rejected as being outside the range of permissible interpretations. See Cleveland v. Fla. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 868 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).[2/] The test is whether the agency’s proposed rule properly implements specific laws. See § 120.52(8)(f), Fla. Stat. The Preference Statute specifically provided a preference for using or converting citrus facilities, not properties. The Proposed Rule does not implement that specific provision of the law. (emphasis added). The Department’s Rationale for Substituting “Property” for “Facility” The Department asserted during the final hearing that it consulted with the Citrus Department on how to interpret the phrase “otherwise processing.”3/ See § 381.986(8)(a)3. (providing that “the department shall give preference to applicants that demonstrate in their applications that they own one or more facilities that are, or were, used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit . . .”). (emphasis added). Ms. Shepp, the Citrus Department’s executive director, testified that activities such as picking, grading, sorting, polishing, and packing citrus fruit constitute “otherwise processing.” She also testified that a packinghouse conducts the aforementioned activities. Section 601.03(29), Florida Statutes, defines a “packinghouse” as “any building, structure, or place where citrus is packed or otherwise prepared for market or shipment in fresh form.” (emphasis added) See the Department’s Proposed Final Order at 9, 10, and 15. Because “a place” can be an area without a physical structure, the Department concluded that using the word “property” in the Proposed Rule rather than “facility” would enable applicants who engage in “otherwise processing” to be eligible for the preference. The Department also argued that this substitution is justified because “it is not uncommon in the citrus industry to conduct citrus operations in the open air or in a tent.” See Department’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees at 9.4/ Ms. Coppola explained that the Department substituted “property” for “facility” in order to assist the distressed citrus industry. Finally, Ms. Coppola stated that using the term “property” serves the legislative intent to extend the preference to applicants that are not presently engaged in canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing but had been in the past.5/ As discussed below in the Conclusions of Law, the Department had no substantial justification for substituting the word “property” for “facility” and thus extending the citrus preference beyond what the Florida Legislature had intended. Moreover, there are no special circumstances that would make an award of attorneys’ fees to Del Favero unjust.
The Issue Is the general partnership, Schiller Investments, a party to the fruit purchase agreement that is the subject of this proceeding with standing to bring a claim for payment? Does the failure of Schiller Investments to register "Shell Creek Groves" as a fictitious name require abating this proceeding?1/ Does the election of remedies provision of section 601.65, Florida Statutes (2011)2/ prohibit the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Division of Administrative Hearings from taking jurisdiction of this matter? Is Gulf Citrus Marketing, LLC, liable to Schiller Investments in the amount of $259,817.41?
Findings Of Fact Schiller Investments is a general partnership formed by Friedrich Schiller and his wife, Barbara Ann Schiller, in Kansas on February 1, 2005. In the transactions involved in this matter, Mr. Schiller acted on behalf of Schiller Investments with full authority as a general partner. Although Schiller Investments has sometimes used the name Shell Creek Groves in business transactions, Schiller Investments has never registered Shell Creek Groves as a fictitious name in Florida. Schiller Investments and Mr. Schiller also used the name Shell Creek Citrus interchangeably with Shell Creek Groves. They also did not register Shell Creek Citrus as a fictitious name. Respondent, Gulf Citrus Marketing, LLC (Gulf Citrus), is a licensed fruit dealer in Florida. George Winslow is the managing member of Gulf Citrus and acted on behalf of Gulf Citrus in all of the communications and transactions with Mr. Schiller and Schiller Investments involved in this matter. On September 23, 2009, Schiller Investments and Gulf Citrus entered into Gulf Citrus Marketing Fruit Purchase Agreement No. 936 (Purchase Agreement). Mr. Winslow drafted the agreement with the assistance of a lawyer. Mr. Winslow has a college degree in agronomy. In contrast, Mr. Schiller's formal education ended with completion of the eighth grade. Mr. Schiller executed the Purchase Agreement on behalf of Schiller Investments. Mr. Winslow executed it on behalf of Gulf Citrus. The signature blocks in the document, drafted by Mr. Winslow and Gulf Citrus's lawyer, do not state the position either man held in the entities on whose behalf they signed, as shown below. But it is plain they are signing on behalf of an entity not as individuals. SELLER: SCHILLER INVESTMENTS dba Shell Creek Groves By: Name: Friedrich Schiller BUYER: GULF CITRUS MARKETING, LLC By: Name: George Winslow The Purchase Agreement was a contract between Gulf Citrus and Schiller Investments. The Purchase Agreement provided for Gulf Citrus to purchase all oranges grown in the Prairie Grove and Shell Creek Grove for four consecutive citrus seasons, beginning with the 2009-2010 season and ending with the 2012-2013 season. The Purchase Agreement provides specific descriptions by survey coordinates of the Charlotte County locations of the groves. Shell Creek Grove is much larger than Prairie Grove. It produced the vast majority of the oranges. From 2009 to present day, Mr. Schiller has owned Shell Creek Grove. Mr. Winslow always knew that Mr. Schiller owned Shell Creek Grove. Mr. Winslow brokered the foreclosure sale of the grove to Mr. Schiller from Metropolitan Life. Before then, Mr. Winslow was one of three co-owners of Shell Creek Grove. From May 17, 2002, until January 25, 2012, Prairie Groves, LLC, owned the Prairie Grove. Throughout the course of their various dealings, Mr. Winslow was aware that Mr. Schiller controlled both groves and business dealings involving them. He regularly communicated with Mr. Schiller about the groves and dealt exclusively with him on matters involving the groves. The Purchase Agreement provides that in the event of the sale of the groves, Gulf Citrus has the right, but not the obligation, to terminate the agreement. It contains other clauses that give Gulf Citrus the right to terminate the contract in certain circumstances. The Purchase Agreement also gives Gulf Citrus the right to assign or transfer the Purchase Agreement to any third party or successor in interest. Schiller Investments timely delivered the oranges from both groves for the 2010-2011 season, as provided in the Purchase Agreement. The oranges satisfied all of the quality standards and other requirements of the Purchase Agreement. Gulf Citrus accepted the oranges. It in turn sold the oranges and received payment for them. Gulf Citrus has not paid $259,817.41 owed for the oranges. During this time, Mr. Winslow experienced financial difficulties. Mr. Schiller allowed Mr. Winslow time to cure his problems and pay the debt. In September and October, 2011, Mr. Schiller communicated regularly with Mr. Winslow and his staff about the unpaid amount and Gulf Citrus's plan to pay it. Mr. Winslow promised payment several times and explained various plans to raise the money, including re-financing real estate. But he never delivered. One scheme Mr. Winslow proposed was for Schiller Investments to enter into a new fruit purchase agreement with a New Jersey company named Johanna Foods. Mr. Schiller chose not to do this. He had reasonable concerns. They were the fact that Johanna Foods was not a licensed Florida Fruit dealer4/, that he was unfamiliar with the company, and that the proposal included an unexplained payment described as a "bonus" that was to make up for the money Gulf Citrus had not paid. Mr. Winslow did not propose to assign the agreement to Johanna Foods. And Gulf Citrus never assigned the agreement.5/ Mr. Winslow acknowledged the failure to pay in writing on October 25, 2011. The letter he wrote and signed that day in Mr. Schiller's presence reads: Fred Schiller It is my intent to pay Shell Creek Grove $259,818.00, of past due fruit proceeds due; on or about Nov 10th subject to refinancing of property owned by George Winslow. In the interim I will advise you weekly of the progress beginning November 1st. George Winslow [signature] In the event payment is not tendered to Shell Creek Grove by Nov 15th Gulf Citrus Marketing will cancel the Fruit Purchase agreement between Gulf Citrus Mkt. and Shell Creek Grove. George Winslow [signature] On October 28, 2011, Mr. Schiller sent Mr. Winslow a handwritten letter stating he was terminating the Purchase Agreement. The letter quoted verbatim below states: Dear George, Due to your financial difficulties and your inability to meet your obligations in a timely manner I am terminating the agreements between "Prairie Grove-Shell Creek Citrus" and your companies at Gulf Citrus effective Nov. 30th 2011. I like to thank your staff especially Lori for everything they have done in the past years. Thank you Fred Schiller Prairie Creek Groves Shell Creek Citrus Cc: Lory Sabrina Mr. Schiller and Mr. Winslow have done business with each other since 2001. They and the entities that they controlled were engaged in other business relationships, including ones involving Prairie Grove and Shell Creek Grove. They included business relationships with Citrus Sweet, Inc., and Florida Gulf Citrus Management, Inc. The relationships included an agreement between Mr. Schiller and Gulf Citrus Management, a Mr. Winslow entity, for management of the Shell Creek Grove. In the course of their business dealings, Mr. Schiller twice provided Mr. Winslow with copies of the Schiller Investments partnership agreement. He provided it personally to Mr. Winslow in 2002. He provided it to Mr. Winslow's staff in 2008 or 2009.6/ Through Mr. Winslow, Gulf Citrus was fully aware of the parties that it was dealing with in all the business relationships including the Purchase Agreement. Gulf Citrus has sued Mr. Schiller in circuit court for claims involving the Purchase Agreement. There is no evidence that Schiller Investments has filed suit in circuit court. There is also no evidence that Gulf Citrus filed its circuit court action before the Department took jurisdiction of the claim of Schiller Investments.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Department enter a final order approving the claim of Schiller Investments against Gulf Citrus Marketing, LLC, in the amount of $259,817.41. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2012.
The Issue The primary issue in this hearing was the existence of a contract between M. Stembridge and Jack's Fruit Company under which monies were owed Stembridge.
Findings Of Fact Prior to August 5, 1974, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge, who was in the grove caretaking business, called Mr. Jack Goldtrap by telephone relative to the sale of citrus fruit on properties managed by her for her mother-in-law and herself. Their discussion regarding the sale of the fruit and the terms was incorporated with the contract, Exhibit 1, which Mr. Goldtrap sent to Mrs. Stembridge together with a check for $7500. Mrs. Stembridge executed the contract, accepted the check, and returned the executed contract to Mr. Goldtrap. This contract recites that Mr. Goldtrap had purchased " all fruit on the following groves at market price at time of picking less 50 cents plus picking cost". Thereafter the contract lists the groves subject to the contract: "Home Bloc, Poor Prospect and R. F. Stembridge grove." The testimony was uncontroverted that the fruit which is the subject of the instant controversy was located within the groves enumerated in the contract, however, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge stated that it had not been her intent to sell the fruit in controversy, but she was uncertain whether this was communicated to Mr. Goldtrap prior to the execution of the contract. Mr. Goldtrap testified that he felt he had purchased all the fruit on the groves as stated in the contract. The Hearing Officer finds that the contract, Exhibit 1, takes precedent over any prior verbal agreement between the parties to the contract and that Mr. Goldtrap purchased all fruit in the grove identified therein. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge and R. M. Stembridge testified that subsequent to the written contract with Mr. Goldtrap that R. M. Stembridge entered into an oral agreement to purchase the fruit in controversy from Mrs. Stembridge (the mother of R. M. Stembridge and mother-in-law of Mrs. Barbara Stembridge, who is the sister-in-law of R. M. Stembridge). R. M. Stembridge desired the fruit for sale in his roadside stand at his service station, and planned to pick the fruit in controversy himself on a piecemeal basis over several months. Pursuant to her mother-in-law's Instructions, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge contacted T. G. Mixon, a field superintendent with 31 years experience to estimate the value of the fruit in controversy. T. G. Mixon looked at the trees and crop in controversy late in 1974 and estimated in value to R. M. Stembridge as $3/box; however, he qualified his estimate stating that this was only a valid estimate of its value to R. M. Stembridge based on his particular intended use and that its market value was no where near that figure. R. M. Stembridge paid the agreed upon price of $900 to his mother-in-law for the fruit in controversy. Prior to picking the fruit he had purchased, Mr. Goldtrap visited the groves and was shown the groves, their boundaries, and the fruit in controversy by Mrs. Barbara Stembridge's foreman. This fruit was red grapefruit which is generally unsuitable for juice production. Such fruit cannot be economically picked for juice because there is no market for the unacceptable fruit. Mr. Goldtrap was advised by Mrs. Stembridge's foreman that Mr. Stembridge was interested in the fruit. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge testified that she thought that her foreman had told an unknown person that the red grapefruit had been promised to her brother-in-law. Mr. Goldtrap decided not to pick the red grapefruit, but to leave the fruit on the trees, and instructed his picking crew supervisors to check with R. M. Stembridge to determine which of the fruit be desired. In addition to the red grapefruit in controversy, R. M. Stembridge also had agreed to purchase white grapefruit from approximately 10 trees adjoining his service station, a fact unknown to Mr. Goldtrap or his supervisors. When the supervisors called on Mr. Stembridge to find out which trees should be spared, Stembridge thinking that they were referring to the white grapefruit trees near his station and that they had been shown the red grapefruit trees by his sister-in-law's foreman told them to begin their picking and when they got down to the station he would show them the trees to spare. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge's foreman did not instruct the picking supervisors and the picking crew picked the red grapefruit in controversy. When Mr. Stembridge became aware of the reds having been picked, he contacted Mr. Goldtrap. Mr. Stembridge was very irate and Mr. Goldtrap was very apologetic not fully realizing how the fruit had been picked when it had been his intent to spare the fruit. At this point, Stembridge demanded $3/box for the fruit, and Mr. Goldtrap stated that was a high price. Thereafter, in either this conversation or a subsequent one, Stembridge stated perhaps he knew a man who would buy them, however, when contacted this individual was not interested. When Goldtrap was advised of this, Goldtrap said he would send another truck and collect the red grapefruit. The issue presented in this controversy, therefore, becomes a question of whether there was a transaction between Mr. Goldtrap and Mr. R. M. Stembridge. It is clear from the contract, Exhibit 1, that Mr. Goldtrap owned the fruit in question at the time Mr. Stembridge "purchased" the fruit from his mother. Goldtrap intended to leave the fruit because of it low value and instructed his supervisors to contact Stembridge so that Stembridge could identify the trees in which be was interested. However, these trees were not identified by Stembridge because Stembridge thinking the supervisors were referring to the white grapefruit trees, did not indicate the trees he desired. Therefore, Goldtrap's intent to relinquish his right to the fruit was never effectively communicated to Mrs. Barbara Stembridge or to R. M. Stembridge. Mr. Stembridge's demand for $3/box for the grapefruit was in essence a demand for damages and not an offer for sale. Even if it were viewed as an offer (overlooking Stembridge's lack of ownership), there is no evidence that Goldtrap accepted the offer. His response was to advise Stembridge that he would send another truck to pick up the fruit. This action was consistent with his prior contract with Barbara Stembridge to purchase all the fruit in the groves and his legal obligation. See Section 601.64(3), Florida Statutes. The testimony was clear that Mr. Goldtrap had not paid out the moneys received from the sale of the red grapefruit because of the questions raised by R. M. Stembridge. However, Barbara Stembridge has filed no complaint in this matter, and based upon the foregoing findings that there is no transaction or contract between R. M. Stembridge and Goldtrap, R. M. Stembridge is not entitled to an accounting or to payment for the fruit in controversy.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent Clark's Country Farmers Market, Inc. owes Petitioner a sum of money for shipments of citrus fruit.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Parties and Their Problem Spyke's Grove and Clark's are "citrus fruit dealers" operating within the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. As a wholesale shipper, Spyke's Grove packages and arranges for delivery of citrus products pursuant to purchase orders that retail sellers such as Clark's submit. The packages typically are labeled with the retail seller's name, and thus the retail buyer (and the recipient, if the citrus is purchased as a gift) usually will not be aware of Spyke's Grove's involvement. The instant case involves a series of orders that Clark's placed with Spyke's Grove between October and December 1999 for packages of gift fruit. Under a number of informal, largely unwritten contracts, Spyke's Grove agreed, each time it received an order from Clark's, to ship a gift fruit box or basket to the donee designated by Clark's' retail customer, for which fruit shipment Clark's agreed to pay Spyke's Grove. Spyke's Grove alleges that Clark's failed to pay in full for all of the gift fruit packages that Clark's ordered and Spyke's Grove duly shipped. Clark's contends (though not precisely in these terms) that Spyke's Grove materially breached the contracts, thereby discharging Clark's from further performance thereunder. The Transactions From mid-October 1999 until around December 12, 1999, Clark's faxed or e-mailed to Spyke's Grove approximately 350 individual orders for gift fruit packages. Among other information, each order consisted of a shipping label that identified the product (e.g. the type of gift box or basket), the intended recipient, and the destination. Spyke's Grove manifested its intent to fill these orders by faxing statements of acknowledgment to Clark's, by telephoning Clark's, or both. Although the many contracts that arose from these transactions were thus documented, the writings left much unsaid. For example, the parties did not explicitly agree in writing that Spyke's Grove would deliver the subject gift baskets to the donees before Christmas, nor did they make any express oral agreements to this effect.1 Further, the parties did not specifically agree that Spyke's Grove would be obligated to deliver the gift fruit into the hands of the donees and bear the risk of loss until such tender of delivery. Rather, the contracts between Spyke's Grove and Clark's were ordinary shipment contracts that required Spyke's Grove to put the goods into the possession of carriers (such as the U.S. Postal Service or United Parcel Service) who in due course would deliver the packages to the donees. For many weeks, until early December 1999, Clark's placed orders, and Spyke's Grove filled them, under the arrangement just described. The relationship was not completely trouble-free, for the parties had some problems with duplicate orders. Most, if not all, of these difficulties stemmed from the implementation of a computerized ordering system which allowed Clark's to "export" orders directly to Spyke's Grove's electronic database. The parties recognized at the time that errors were occurring, and they attempted contemporaneously to identify and purge unintended duplicates. Pursuant to the course of dealing between these parties, Spyke's Grove filled orders that were not affirmatively identified as errors prior to the scheduled shipment date. The Fire On the night of Sunday, December 12, 1999, a devastating fire at Spyke's Grove's premises caused substantial damage, temporarily disrupting its citrus packing and shipping operations at the peak of the holiday season. Working through and around the loss, Spyke's Grove soon recovered sufficiently to reopen for business. By around noon on Tuesday, December 14, 1999, its telephone service had been restored, and activities relating to shipping resumed on Friday, December 17, 1999. The Aftermath Meantime, Clark's contends, customers had begun calling Clark's on December 10, 1999, to complain that gift fruit packages were not being received as promised. None of the customers testified at hearing, however, and therefore no competent, non-hearsay evidence establishes the contents of their alleged out-of-court statements. On December 14, 1999, following several unsuccessful attempts to communicate with Spyke's Grove shortly after the fire (about which Clark's remained unaware), Denise Clark, acting on behalf of Clark's, reached Robert Spiece, a representative of Spyke's Grove, on his cell phone. At hearing, Ms. Clark and Mr. Spiece gave conflicting accounts as to the substance of their December 14, 1999, telephone conversation. Neither disputed, however, that during this conversation Ms. Clark and Mr. Spiece agreed, at Ms. Clark's request, that all orders of Clark's not yet shipped by Spyke's Grove would be canceled, effective immediately, as a result of the fire. Although Ms. Clark claimed that Mr. Spiece further informed her that Spyke's Grove could not identify which orders had been shipped, the factfinder does not believe that Mr. Spiece made such a sweeping negative statement. Rather, as Mr. Spiece explained at hearing, Ms. Clark probably was told that information regarding the filled orders would not be available that day. Without waiting for further information from Spyke's Grove, Clark's began calling its retail customers to ascertain whether they had received packages that were supposed to have been shipped by Spyke's Grove. Employees of Clark's who had participated in this process——which took four to five days—— testified at hearing about conversations between themselves and various customers. As uncorroborated hearsay, however, the out- of-court statements attributed to these customers were not competent substantial evidence upon which a relevant finding of fact, e.g. that any particular customer or customers had not received their gift fruit, could be based. Moreover, this hearsay evidence, even if competent, would still have been too anecdotal to establish persuasively any widespread failure on the part of the carriers to deliver the packages shipped by Spyke's Grove. On December 15, 1999, Spyke's Grove prepared three draft invoices for the gift fruit packages that Clark's had ordered and which Spyke's Grove had shipped before December 12, 1999. Numbered 1999113001, 1999121101, and 1999121201, the invoices sought payment of $688.72, $2,415.48, and $298.66, respectively. On the first page of Invoice #1999121201, Barbara Spiece, the President of Spyke's Grove, wrote: Some of these were lost in the fire. "A" day left in the morning. "Springfield" was on the floor to go out that night. I realize there are many duplicates in these shipped reports. We tried to watch for them but with different order numbers it was very difficult. Just cross them out [and] you will not be charged for them. I apologize for all of the problems we have had this season [illegible] wish you luck. These bills were faxed to, and received by, Clark's on December 16, 1999. Clark's did not pay the invoices, or dispute them, or cross out the unintended duplicate orders (as it had been invited to do) to effect a reduction in the outstanding balance. Instead, Clark's ignored Spyke's Grove's requests for payment. Not only that, in disregard of its existing contractual obligations and with no advance notice to Spyke's Grove, Clark's proceeded on its own to fill all of the orders that it had placed with Spyke's Grove before December 12, 1999——including those orders that Spyke's Grove, through its draft invoices, claimed to have shipped. Even after the fact, Clark's failed to inform Spyke's Grove that it had, in effect, repudiated its contractual promises to pay Spyke's Grove for the gift fruit packages already shipped as of December 12, 1999 (i.e. the orders not canceled on December 14, 1999). The Inevitable Dispute Having heard nothing from Clark's in response to its December 16, 1999, fax, Spyke's Grove sent its invoices out again, in final form, on January 25, 2000.2 This time, Ms. Spiece did not inscribe any instructions to cross out duplicates for a discount. Numbered 11063001 ($688.72), 11063002 ($2,449.14), and 11063003 ($195.52), these bills totaled $3,333.38. Each of these invoices contained the following boilerplate "terms": Net 14 days prompt payment is expected and appreciated. A 1 ½% monthly service charge (A.P.R. 18% per annum) may be charged on all past due accounts. Customer agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorneys [sic] fees and court costs, should collection efforts ever become necessary. Clark's did not remit payment or otherwise respond to Spyke's Grove's statements. Accordingly, on June 20, 2000, Spyke's Grove sent a letter to the Department requesting assistance. Clark's was provided a copy of this letter. Shortly thereafter, Spyke's Grove filed a Complaint with the Department, initiating the instant proceeding. Ultimate Factual Determinations Clark's refusal to pay for the goods ordered from and shipped by Spyke's Grove constituted a breach of the contracts between the parties. Spyke's Grove did not materially breach the agreements. Further, Clark's did not object, within a reasonable period of time, to the statements of account that Spyke's Grove rendered preliminarily on December 16, 1999, and finally on January 25, 2000. Accordingly, these invoices amount to an account stated concerning the transactions between the parties. Clark's failed to overcome the presumption of correctness that attaches to an account stated, either by proving fraud, mistake, or error. Spyke's Grove has suffered an injury as a result of Clark's' breach. Spyke's Grove's damages consist of the principal amount of the debt together with pre-award interest at the statutory rate. Accordingly, Spyke's Grove is entitled to recover the following amounts from Clark's: Principal Due Date Statutory Interest $3,333.38 2/08/99 $ 298.66 (2/08/00 - 12/31/00) $ 335.56 (1/01/01 - 11/30/01) $3,333.38 $ 634.22 Interest will continue to accrue on the outstanding balance of $3,333.38 in the amount of $1.00 per day from December 1, 2001, until the date of the final order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order awarding Spyke's Grove the sum of $3,333.38, together with pre- award interest in the amount of $634.22 (through November 30, 2001), plus additional interest from December 1, 2001, until the date of the final order, which will accrue in the amount of $1.00 per day. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 29th day of November, 2001.
The Issue The issue in DOAH Case No. 02-3648RE is whether Emergency Rules 20ER02-01, 20ER02-02, and 20ER02-03 constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The issue in DOAH Case No. 02-4607RP is whether Proposed Rules 20-15.001, 20- 15.002, and 20-15.003, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulated facts, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Florida Citrus Commission was established in 1935 to organize and promote the growing and sale of various citrus products, fresh and processed, in the State of Florida. The purpose of the Citrus Commission is today reflected in Section 601.02, Florida Statutes. The powers of the Florida Citrus Commission ("the Commission") and the Department, are set forth in full in Section 601.10, Florida Statutes. The powers of the Department include the power to tax and raise other revenue to achieve the purposes of the Department. In particular, Section 601.10(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, state: The Department of Citrus shall have and shall exercise such general and specific powers as are delegated to it by this chapter and other statutes of the state, which powers shall include, but shall not be confined to, the following: To adopt and, from time to time, alter, rescind, modify, or amend all proper and necessary rules, regulations, and orders for the exercise of its powers and the performance of its duties under this chapter and other statutes of the state, which rules and regulations shall have the force and effect of law when not inconsistent therewith. To act as the general supervisory authority over the administration and enforcement of this chapter and to exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be imposed upon it by other laws of the state. The Department is authorized to set standards by Section 601.11, Florida Statutes, as follows: The Department of Citrus shall have full and plenary power to, and may, establish state grades and minimum maturity and quality standards not inconsistent with existing laws for citrus fruits and food products thereof containing 20 percent or more citrus or citrus juice, whether canned or concentrated, or otherwise processed, including standards for frozen concentrate for manufacturing purposes, and for containers therefor, and shall prescribe rules or regulations governing the marking, branding, labeling, tagging, or stamping of citrus fruit, or products thereof whether canned or concentrated, or otherwise processed, and upon containers therefor for the purpose of showing the name and address of the person marketing such citrus fruit or products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed; the grade, quality, variety, type, or size of citrus fruit, the grade, quality, variety, type, and amount of the products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed, and the quality, type, size, dimensions, and shape of containers therefor, and to regulate or prohibit the use of containers which have been previously used for the sale, transportation, or shipment of citrus fruit or the products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed, or any other commodity; provided, however, that the use of secondhand containers for sale and delivery of citrus fruit for retail consumption within the state shall not be prohibited; provided, however, that no standard, regulation, rule, or order under this section which is repugnant to any requirement made mandatory under federal law or regulations shall apply to citrus fruit, or the products thereof, whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed, or to containers therefor, which are being shipped from this state in interstate commerce. All citrus fruit and the products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed sold, or offered for sale, or offered for shipment within or without the state shall be graded and marked as required by this section and the regulations, rules, and orders adopted and made under authority of this section, which regulations, rules, and orders shall, when not inconsistent with state or federal law, have the force and effect of law. The Department is authorized to conduct citrus research by Section 601.13, Florida Statutes. To help pay for these duties of the Department, the Legislature first enacted the "box tax" in 1949. The box tax is now codified as Section 601.15(3), Florida Statutes. Section 601.15(3)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part: There is hereby levied and imposed upon each standard-packed box of citrus fruit grown and placed into the primary channel of trade in this state an excise tax at annual rates for each citrus season as determined from the tables in this paragraph and based upon the previous season's actual statewide production as reported in the United States Department of Agriculture Citrus Crop Production Forecast as of June 1. Section 601.15(3)(a), Florida Statutes, goes on to set forth specific rates for fresh grapefruit, processed grapefruit, fresh oranges, processed oranges, and fresh or processed tangerines and citrus hybrids. Section 601.15(1), Florida Statutes, sets forth the Department's authority to administer the box tax, as follows: The administration of this section shall be vested in the Department of Citrus, which shall prescribe suitable and reasonable rules and regulations for the enforcement hereof, and the Department of Citrus shall administer the taxes levied and imposed hereby. All funds collected under this section and the interest accrued on such funds are consideration for a social contract between the state and the citrus growers of the state whereby the state must hold such funds in trust and inviolate and use them only for the purposes prescribed in this chapter. The Department of Citrus shall have power to cause its duly authorized agent or representative to enter upon the premises of any handler of citrus fruits and to examine or cause to be examined any books, papers, records, or memoranda bearing on the amount of taxes payable and to secure other information directly or indirectly concerned in the enforcement hereof. Any person who is required to pay the taxes levied and imposed and who by any practice or evasion makes it difficult to enforce the provisions hereof by inspection, or any person who, after demand by the Department of Citrus or any agent or representative designated by it for that purpose, refuses to allow full inspection of the premises or any part thereof or any books, records, documents, or other instruments in any manner relating to the liability of the taxpayer for the tax imposed or hinders or in anywise delays or prevents such inspection, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The box tax was challenged in 1936 and the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in 1937 upholding the validity of the box tax. C.V. Floyd Fruit Company v. Florida Citrus Commission, 128 Fla. 565, 175 So. 248 (1937). In 1970, the Legislature enacted the "equalization tax," codified as Section 601.155, Florida Statutes. The statute mirrored Section 601.15, Florida Statutes, but added certain processors who were mixing foreign citrus products with Florida products. The purpose of the equalization tax was to have all Florida processors of citrus products help pay for the costs of the Department, rather than have the burden fall entirely on the Florida growers subject to the box tax. Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part: The first person who exercises in this state the privilege of processing, reprocessing, blending, or mixing processed orange products or processed grapefruit products or the privilege of packaging or repackaging processed orange products or processed grapefruit products into retail or institutional size containers or, except as provided in subsection (9) or except if a tax is levied and collected on the exercise of one of the foregoing privileges, the first person having title to or possession of any processed orange product or any processed grapefruit product who exercises the privilege in this state of storing such product or removing any portion of such product from the original container in which it arrived in this state for purposes other than official inspection or direct consumption by the consumer and not for resale shall be assessed and shall pay an excise tax upon the exercise of such privilege at the rate described in subsection (2). Upon the exercise of any privilege described in subsection (1), the excise tax levied by this section shall be at the same rate per box of oranges or grapefruit utilized in the initial production of the processed citrus products so handled as that imposed, at the time of exercise of the taxable privilege, by s. 601.15 per box of oranges. In order to administer the tax, the Legislature provided the following relevant provisions in Section 601.155, Florida Statutes: Every person liable for the excise tax imposed by this section shall keep a complete and accurate record of the receipt, storage, handling, exercise of any taxable privilege under this section, and shipment of all products subject to the tax imposed by this section. Such record shall be preserved for a period of 1 year and shall be offered for inspection upon oral or written request by the Department of Citrus or its duly authorized agent. Every person liable for the excise tax imposed by this section shall, at such times and in such manner as the Department of Citrus may by rule require, file with the Department of Citrus a return, certified as true and correct, on forms to be prescribed and furnished by the Department of Citrus, stating, in addition to other information reasonably required by the Department of Citrus, the number of units of processed orange or grapefruit products subject to this section upon which any taxable privilege under this section was exercised during the period of time covered by the return. Full payment of excise taxes due for the period reported shall accompany each return. All taxes levied and imposed by this section shall be due and payable within 61 days after the first of the taxable privileges is exercised in this state. Periodic payment of the excise taxes imposed by this section by the person first exercising the taxable privileges and liable for such payment shall be permitted only in accordance with Department of Citrus rules, and the payment thereof shall be guaranteed by the posting of an appropriate certificate of deposit, approved surety bond, or cash deposit in an amount and manner as prescribed by the Department of Citrus. * * * (11) This section shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes set forth and as additional and supplemental powers vested in the Department of Citrus under the police power of this state. In March 2000, certain citrus businesses challenged Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, as being unconstitutional. At the time of the suit, Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, read as follows: All products subject to the taxable privileges under this section, which products are produced in whole or in part from citrus fruit grown within the United States, are exempt from the tax imposed by this section to the extent that the products are derived from oranges or grapefruit grown within the United States. In the case of products made in part from citrus fruit grown within the United States, it shall be the burden of the persons liable for the excise tax to show the Department of Citrus, through competent evidence, proof of that part which is not subject to a taxable privilege. The citrus businesses claimed the exemption in Section 601.155(5) rendered the tax unconstitutionally discriminatory, in that processors who imported juice from foreign countries to be blended with Florida juice were subject to the equalization tax, whereas processors who imported juice from places such as California, Arizona and Texas enjoyed an exemption from the tax. The case, Tampa Juice Service, Inc., et al. v. Department of Citrus, Case No. GCG-00-3718 (Consolidated), was brought in the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Polk County. Judge Dennis P. Maloney of that court continues to preside over that case. In a partial final declaratory judgment effective March 15, 2002, Judge Maloney found Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution due to its discriminatory effect in favor of non-Florida United States juice. In an order dated April 15, 2002, Judge Maloney severed the exemption in Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, from the remainder of the statute. The court's decision necessitated the formulation of a remedy for the injured plaintiffs. While the parties were briefing the issue before the court, the Florida Legislature met and passed Chapter 2002-26, Laws of Florida, which amended Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, to read as follows: Products made in whole or in part from citrus fruit on which an equivalent tax is levied pursuant to s. 601.15 are exempt from the tax imposed by this section. In the case of products made in part from citrus fruit exempt from the tax imposed by this section, it shall be the burden of the persons liable for the excise tax to show the Department of Citrus, through competent evidence, proof of that part which is not subject to a taxable privilege. Chapter 2002-26, Laws of Florida, was given an effective date of July 1, 2002. By order dated August 8, 2002, Judge Maloney set forth his decision as to the remedy for the plaintiffs injured by the discriminatory effect of Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes. Judge Maloney expressly relied on the rationale set forth in Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. McKesson Corporation, 574 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1991)("McKesson II"). In its initial McKesson decision, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. McKesson Corporation, 524 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1988), the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment ruling that Florida's alcoholic beverage tax scheme, which gave tax preferences and exemptions to certain alcoholic beverages made from Florida crops, unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce. The Florida Supreme Court also affirmed that portion of the summary judgment giving the ruling prospective effect, thus denying the plaintiff a refund of taxes paid pursuant to the unconstitutional scheme. The decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In McKesson Corporation v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18 (1990), the United States Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court's decision as to the prospective effect of its decision. The United States Supreme Court held that: The question before us is whether prospective relief, by itself, exhausts the requirements of federal law. The answer is no: If a State places a taxpayer under duress promptly to pay a tax when due and relegates him to a postpayment refund action in which he can challenge the tax's legality, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment obligates the State to provide meaningful backward-looking relief to rectify any unconstitutional deprivation. 496 U.S. at 31 (footnotes omitted). The United States Supreme Court set forth the following options by which the state could meet its obligation to provide "meaningful backward-looking relief:" [T]he State may cure the invalidity of the Liquor Tax by refunding to petitioner the difference between the tax it paid and the tax it would have been assessed were it extended the same rate reductions that its competitors actually received. . . . Alternatively, to the extent consistent with other constitutional restrictions, the State may assess and collect back taxes from petitioner's competitors who benefited from the rate reductions during the contested tax period, calibrating the retroactive assessment to create in hindsight a nondiscriminatory scheme. . . . Finally, a combination of a partial refund to petitioner and a partial retroactive assessment of tax increases on favored competitors, so long as the resultant tax actually assessed during the contested tax period reflects a scheme that does not discriminate against interstate commerce, would render petitioner's resultant deprivation lawful and therefore satisfy the Due Process Clause's requirement of a fully adequate postdeprivation procedure. 496 U.S. at 40-41 (citations and footnotes omitted). The United States Supreme Court expressly provided that the state has the option of choosing the form of relief it will grant. In keeping with the United States Supreme Court opinion, the Florida Supreme Court granted the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the "Division") leave to advise the Court as to the form of relief the state wished to provide. The Division proposed to retroactively assess and collect taxes from those of McKesson's competitors who had benefited from the discriminatory tax scheme. McKesson contended that a refund of the taxes it had paid was the only clear and certain remedy, because retroactive taxation of its competitors would violate their due process rights. McKesson II, 574 So. 2d at 115. The Florida Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on McKesson's refund claim, with the following instructions: While McKesson may not necessarily be entitled to a refund, it is entitled to a "clear and certain remedy," as outlined in the Supreme Court's opinion. Because nonparties, such as amici, will be directly affected by the retroactive tax scheme proposed by the state, all affected by the proposed emergency rule must be given notice and an opportunity to intervene in this action. Therefore, on remand, the trial court not only must determine whether the state's proposal meets "the minimum federal requirements" outlined in the Supreme Court's opinion, it also must determine whether the proposal comports with federal and state protections afforded those against whom the proposed tax will be assessed. We emphasize that the state has the option of choosing the manner in which it will reformulate the alcoholic beverage tax during the contested period so that the resultant tax actually assessed during that period reflects a scheme which does not discriminate against interstate commerce. Therefore, if the trial court should rule that the state's proposal to retroactively assess and collect taxes from McKesson's competitors does not meet constitutional muster and such ruling is upheld on appeal, the state may offer an alternative remedy for the trial court's review. However, any such proposal likewise must satisfy the standards set forth by the Supreme Court as well as be consistent with other constitutional restrictions. 574 So. 2d at 116. In the instant case, Judge Maloney assessed the options prescribed by the series of McKesson cases and concluded that the only fair remedy was to assess and collect back assessments from those who benefited from the unconstitutional equalization tax exemption. His August 8, 2002 order directed the Department to "take appropriate steps, consistent with existing law, to assess and collect the Equalization tax from those entities which [benefited] from the unconstitutional exemption." On September 18, 2002, the Department promulgated the Emergency Rules at issue in DOAH Case No. 02-3648RE. The Emergency Rules were filed with the Department of State on September 24, 2002, and took effect on that date. They were published in the October 4, 2002 issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly (vol. 28, no. 40, pp. 4271-4272). The full text of the Emergency Rules is: EQUALIZATION TAX ON NON-FLORIDA UNITED STATES JUICE 20ER02-1 Intent. The Court in Tampa Juice Service, et al v. Florida Department of Citrus in Consolidated Case Number GCG-003718 (Circuit Court in and for Polk County, Florida) severed the exemption contained in Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, that provided an exemption for persons who exercised one of the enumerated Equalization Tax privileges on non-Florida, United States juice. The Court had previously determined that the stricken provisions operated in a manner that violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. On August 8, 2002, the Court ordered that the Florida Department of Citrus "take appropriate steps, consistent with existing law, to assess and collect the Equalization tax from those entities which [benefited] from the unconstitutional exemption." It is the Florida Department of Citrus' intent by promulgating the following remedial Rule 20ER02-01 and Chapter 20-15, F.A.C., to implement a non-discriminatory tax scheme, which does not impose a significant tax burden that is so harsh and oppressive as to transgress constitutional limitations. These rules shall be applicable to those previously favored persons who received favorable tax treatment under the statutory sections cited above. Specific Authority 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. Law Implemented 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. History-- New 9-24-02. 20ER02-2 Definitions. "Previously favored persons" shall be defined as any person who exercised an enumerated Equalization Tax privilege as defined by Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, but who was exempt from payment of the Equalization Tax due to the exemption for non-Florida, United States juice set forth in the statutory provision, which was ultimately determined to be unconstitutional and severed from Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes. The "tax period" during which the severed provisions of Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, were in effect shall be defined as commencing on October 6, 1997, and ending on March 14, 2002. "Tax liability" shall be defined as the total amount of taxes due to the Florida Department of Citrus during the "tax period," at the following rates per box for each respective fiscal year: Fiscal Year Processed Rate Orange Grapefruit 1997-1998 .175 .30 1998-1999 .17 .30 1999-2000 .18 .325 2000-2001 .175 .30 2001-2002 .165 .18 Specific Authority 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. Law Implemented 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. History-- New 9-24-02. 20ER02-3 Collection. The Florida Department of Citrus shall calculate the tax liability for each person or entity that exercised an enumerated Equalization Tax privilege outlined in section 601.155, Florida Statutes, upon non-Florida, United States juice based upon inspection records maintained by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the United States Department of Agriculture. Additionally, the Florida Department of Citrus will provide notice of the calculation to the previously favored persons by certified mail. The notice of the calculation shall contain a statement including the following categories: (a) Tax liability; (b) Gallons; Brix; Type of product; (e) Total solids; (f) Conversion rate; (g) Total boxes; (h) Delineation of non-Florida, United States juice. (2)(a) Contained within the notice will be the various legal options available to those who previously enjoyed the exemption, set forth in proposed Rule 20- 15.003(2), F.A.C. (b) Persons who previously enjoyed the exemption may petition to intervene in the case of Tampa Juice Service, Inc., et al, Consolidated Case No. GCG-003718, presently pending before the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County. A hearing to consider arguments made by any intervenor, the Plaintiffs and the Florida Department of Citrus is currently scheduled to be heard by the Honorable Dennis Maloney on November 12, 2002, in Bartow, Florida. (3) The Florida Department of Citrus will not oppose the timely intervention of persons who previously enjoyed the subject exemption that wish to present a claim to the Court in the Tampa Juice Service, Inc., et al v. Florida Department of Citrus. However, the Florida Department of Citrus does not waive any argument regarding the validity of the calculation of the tax liability or that imposition of this tax is constitutional. Specific Authority 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. Law Implemented 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. History-- New 9-24-02. The Department's "Specific Reasons for Finding an Immediate Danger to the Public Health, Safety or Welfare" were set forth as follows: On March 18, 2002, the Court in the Tenth Judicial Circuit, State of Florida, in and for Polk County, entered a Partial Final Declaratory Judgment in the case of Tampa Juice Service, Inc., et al v. Florida Department of Citrus, Consolidated Case Number GCG-003718. In this order the Court ruled that the exemption in Section 601.155, F.S., for non-Florida, United States juice was unconstitutional. On or about April 15, 2002, the Court severed the exemption for non-Florida, United States juice from section 601.155(5), F.S. On August 8, 2002, the Court held that the Florida Department of Citrus was required to cure the invalidity of the equalization taxing scheme. To cure this invalidity, the Florida Department of Citrus promulgates Rule 20ER02-1, F.A.C., which will serve to implement the Court's order for a nondiscriminatory tax scheme and provide due process protections for the previously favored taxpayers. These rules are being promulgated on an emergency basis to meet time constraints associated with litigation and to establish guidelines which protect the public's and state's interest for the orderly and efficient collection and payment of the tax liability. Without these guidelines, the welfare of the citizens and the state would be adversely affected because of the immediate and widespread impact of the failure of previously favored persons to properly remit the tax. The Department's "Reason for Concluding that the Procedure is Fair Under the Circumstances" was set forth as follows: Promulgation of these guidelines using the emergency rule procedures is the only available mechanism which adequately protects the public interests under the circumstances which require collection and payment of the tax liability. This procedure is fair to the public and to the previously favored persons. It permits promulgation of the necessary guidelines within a time frame which allows the industry to be adequately informed of their duties, responsibilities and rights with respect to the tax liability. In the November 15, 2002 issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly (vol. 28, no. 46, pp. 4996-4998), the Department published the Proposed Rules at issue in DOAH Case No. 02-4607RP. The text of Proposed Rule 20-15.001, Florida Administrative Code, is identical to that of Emergency Rule 20ER02-1, set forth above. The text of Proposed Rule 20-15.002, Florida Administrative Code, is identical to that of Emergency Rule 20ER02-2, set forth above. The text of Proposed Rule 20- 15.003(1)&(3), Florida Administrative Code, is identical to that of Emergency Rule 20ER02-3(1)&(3), set forth above. The text of Proposed Rule 15.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, varies from the text of Emergency Rule 20ER02-3(2), and reads as follows: 20-15.003 Collection. Subsequent to adoption of this rule, the Florida Department of Citrus will provide to the previously favored persons by certified mail a Notice of Tax Liability which shall contain a demand for payment consistent with the above-referenced itemized statement. The Department will deem late payment of Equalization Taxes owed by previously favored persons to constitute good cause, and shall waive the 5 percent penalty authorized by Section 601.155(10), F.S., as compliance with either of the following is established by Department [sic]: Lump sum payment of the tax liability remitted with the filing of Department of Citrus Form 4R (incorporated by reference in Rule 20-100.004, F.A.C.) for the relevant years and then-applicable tax rate(s) per subsection 20-15.002(3), F.A.C., within 61 days of receiving Notice of Tax Liability; or Equal installment payments remitted with the filing of Department of Citrus Form 4R (incorporated by reference in Rule 20-100.004, F.A.C.) for the relevant years and then-applicable tax rate(s) per subsection subsection [sic] 20-15.002(3), F.A.C., over a 60-month period, the first payment being due within 61 days of receiving Notice of Tax Liability pursuant to subsection 20-15.003(2), F.A.C.; or The Good Cause provisions of 601.155(10), F.S., shall not apply to persons who do not comply with paragraph 20- 15.003(2)(a), F.A.C., or paragraph 20- 15.003(2)(b), F.A.C. Failure to pay the taxes or penalties due under 601.155, F.S. and Chapter 20-15, F.A.C., shall constitute grounds for revocation or suspension of a previously favored person's citrus fruit dealer's license pursuant to 601.56(4), F.S., 601.64(6), F.S., 601.64(7), F.S., and/or 601.67(1), F.S. Peace River is a Florida corporation and licensed citrus fruit dealer regulated by Chapter 601, Florida Statutes. As such, Peace River is subject to the rules of the Department. Peace River buys, sells, and manufactures bulk citrus juices. By correspondence dated October 2, 2002, Peace River was notified by the Department that Peace River would be liable for payment of $86,242.41 in Equalization taxes for the tax period of October 6, 1997 through March 14, 2002 (the "tax period"), pursuant to the terms of the Emergency Rules. Fresh Juice is a Florida corporation and licensed citrus fruit dealer regulated by Chapter 601, Florida Statutes. As such, Fresh Juice is subject to the rules of the Department. Fresh Juice buys, sells, and manufactures citrus juices. By correspondence dated October 2, 2002, Fresh Juice was notified by the Department that Fresh Juice would be liable for payment of $45,052.19 in Equalization taxes for the tax period, pursuant to the terms of the Emergency Rules. Sun Orchard is a Florida corporation and licensed citrus fruit dealer regulated by Chapter 601, Florida Statutes. As such, Sun Orchard is subject to the rules of the Department. Sun Orchard buys, sells, and manufactures citrus juices. By correspondence dated October 2, 2002, Sun Orchard was notified by the Department that Sun Orchard would be liable for payment of $45,052.19 in Equalization taxes for the tax period, pursuant to the terms of the Emergency Rules. During the tax period, Peace River, Fresh Juice, and Sun Orchard imported, stored and blended non-Florida, United States citrus juices. Neither Peace River, Fresh Juice, nor Sun Orchard is a party to the lawsuit styled Tampa Juice Service, Inc., et al. v. Department of Citrus, Case No. GCG-00-3718 (Consolidated). Peace River, Fresh Juice, and Sun Orchard contend that they relied on the tax exemption in making business decisions and had no notice that their activities regarding non-Florida, United States juice would be taxable upon the court's striking of the exemption in Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, Peace River, Fresh Juice, and Sun Orchard contend that, during the tax period, they had no opportunity to conform their conduct to avoid the tax or position themselves to claim a refund allowed by Section 601.155, Florida Statutes. Peace River, Fresh Juice, and Sun Orchard contend that they have not been obligated by Chapter 601, Florida Statutes, to keep specific records on their use of non-Florida United States citrus juices for the tax period, but admit they keep business records required by law, which may include some business records related to non-Florida United States juice during the tax period. Peace River, Fresh Juice, and Sun Orchard shipped products made with non-Florida, United States juice during the tax period without payment of the Equalization Tax.
