The Issue Has Respondent Fancy Farms Sales, Inc. (Fancy Farms) made proper accounting to Petitioner Lonnie Pearce in accordance with Section 604.22(1), Florida Statutes, for agriculture products delivered to Fancy Farms from October 28, 1994, through December 10, 1994, by Lonnie Pearce to be handled by Fancy Farms as agent for Lonnie Pearce on a net return basis as defined in Section 604.15(4), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Lonnie Pearce was in the business of growing and selling "agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes, and was a "producer" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Fancy Farms was licensed as a "dealer in agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes, as evidenced by license number 8453 issued by the Department, supported by bond number 57 92 20 in the amount of $75,000, written by Gulf Insurance Company with an inception date of September 1, 1994, and an expiration date of August 31, 1995. Beginning October 28, 1994, and continuing through December 10, 1994, Lonnie Pearce delivered certain quantities of an agricultural product (zucchini) to Fancy Farms. It is the accounting for these zucchini (zukes) that is in dispute. It was stipulated by the parties that Fancy Farms was acting as agent in the sale of the zukes delivered to Fancy Farms for the account of Lonnie Pearce on a net return basis. There is no dispute as the quantity or size of the zukes delivered by Lonnie Pearce to Fancy Farms during the above period of time. Furthermore, there is no dispute as to the charges made by Fancy Farms for handling the zukes, including but not limited to the commission charged by Fancy Farms. The agreed upon commission was ten per cent (10 percent) of the price received by Fancy Farms from its customers. There is no evidence that Fancy Farms found any problem with the quality of the zukes delivered to Fancy Farms by Lonnie Pearce during the above period of time. Upon delivering the zukes to Fancy Farms, Pearce was given a prenumbered receiving ticket showing Lonnie Pearce as Grower number 6 and containing the following additional information: (a) date and time of delivery; (b) produce number, i.e., 37 indicating fancy zukes and 38 indicating medium zukes; (c) description of the produce, i.e., zukes, fancy; (d) a lot number containing number of delivery ticket, grower number and produce number, i.e. 2074-6-37 and; (e) the number of units of zukes received by Fancy Farm. The accounting for the zukes from the following delivery receipt ticket numbers is being contested in this proceeding: (a) 2074 dated October 28, 1994, lot nos. 2074-6-37 and 2074-6-38; (b) 2078 dated October 31, 1994, lot nos. 2078-6-37 and 2078-6-38; (c) 2086 dated November 3, 1994, lot nos. 2086-6-37 and 2086-6-38; (d) 2103 dated November 4, 1994, lot nos. 2103-6-37 and 2103-6-38; (e) 2128 dated November 8, 1994, lot nos. 2128-6-37 and 2128-6-38; (f) 2144 dated November 10, 1994, lot nos. 2144-6-37 and 2144-6-38; (g) 2162 dated November 12, 1994, lot nos. 2162-6-37 and 2162-6-38; (h) 2180 dated November 15, 1994, lot nos. 2180-6-37 and 2180-6-38; (i) 2241 dated November 29, 1994, lot nos. 2241-6-37 and 2241-6-38; (j) 2253 dated December 1, 1994, lot nos. 2253-6- 37 and 2253-6-38; (k) 2266 dated December 3, 1994, lot nos. 2266-6-37 and 2266- 6-38; (l) 2290 dated December 7, 1994, lot nos. 2290-6-37 and 2290-6-38 and; (m) 2314 dated December 10, 1994, lot nos. 2314-6-37 and 2314-6-38. Once Fancy Farms found a customer for the zukes, Fancy Farms prepared a prenumbered billing invoice. Additionally, a bill of lading and load sheet was prepared and attached to the invoice. The bill of lading and load sheet would have the same number as the invoice. Basically, the invoice and bill of lading contained the customer's name and address, produce number, description of produce, number of units ordered, number of units shipped and the price per unit. The load sheet contains the customer's name, produce number, description of produce, units ordered, units shipped and the lot number for the units that made up the shipment. On numerous occasions Fancy Farms made adjustments to the selling price after the price had been quoted and accepted but before the invoice was prepared. Fancy Farms did not make any written notations in its records showing the adjustments to the price or the reasons for the adjustments to the price. Salvatore Toscano testified, and I find his testimony to be credible, that this usually occurred when there was a decrease in the market price after Fancy Farms made the original quote. Therefore, in order to keep the customer, Fancy Farms made an adjustment to the price. Pearce was never made aware of these price adjustments. In accounting for the zukes delivered by Pearce, Fancy Farms prepared a Grower's Statement which included the delivery receipt number, the date of delivery, the lot number, grower number, produce number, description of the produce, quantity (number of units), price per unit and total due. Payment for the zukes was made to Lonnie Pearce from these statements by Fancy Farms. On occasions payment was for only one delivery receipt while at other times payment was for several delivery receipts for different dates. Petitioner's exhibit 2 is the Florida Vegetable Report (Market Report), Volume XIV, Nos. 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 31, 33, 35, 37 and 40, dated October 28, 31, 1994, November 3, 4,8, 10, 14, 15, 29, 1994, and December 1, 5, 7, 12, 1994, respectively. The Market Report is a federal-state publication which reports the demand (moderate), market (steady), volume sold and prices paid for numerous vegetables, including zucchini, on a daily basis. The prices quoted for zucchini is for 1/2 and 5/9th bushel cartons and includes palletizing. The average cost for palletizing in the industry is 65 per carton. Fancy Farms receives and sells zukes in one-half (1/2) bushel cartons. Fancy Farms does not palletize the cartons for handling at its warehouse or for shipment. From October 28, 1994, through November 8, 1994, Pearce delivered a combined total of 431 units of fancy and medium zukes which included all lot numbers listed on delivery receipt ticket numbers 2074, 2078, 2086, 2103 and 2128. Pearce was paid $1,715.70 by Fancy Farms for those zukes as evidenced by Pearce's Grower Statement dated November 17, 1994 (Petitioner's exhibit 1). Fancy Farms sold this combined total of 431 units of zukes for $1,901.36 as evidenced by invoice nos. 3755, 3777, 3806 and 3814. The commission earned on these sales is $190.14 (0.10 x 1901.36 = 190.14). The amount owed by Pearce after deducting the amount paid by Fancy Farms ($1,715.70) and the commission ($190.14) is: $1,901.36 - $1,715.70 - $190.14 = -$4.48. The Market Report shows a much higher price being paid on the market for both fancy zukes (mostly $10.00 on 10/28/94 and mostly $8.00 on 10/31/94) and medium zukes (mostly $8.00 on 10/28/94) and mostly $6.00 on 10/31/94) than was allowed Pearce for zukes delivered on the same dates to Fancy Farms. However, the zukes delivered on October 28 & 31, 1994, were not sold by Fancy Farms until November 1, 1994. There is no Market Report for November 1, 1994, included in Petitioner's exhibit 2. The Market Reports for November 3, 4, 8 and 10, 1994, included in Petitioner's exhibit 2, show fancy zukes selling for $4.00 - $6.65 and medium zukes selling $2.25 - $4.65. The prices ($5.00 - $6.00 for fancy zukes and $3.50 to $4.14 for medium zukes) received by Fancy Farms for those zukes delivered to Fancy Farms by Pearce beginning October 28 through November 11, 1994, are in line with the Market Report. Therefore, the prices received by Fancy Farms have been used to calculate the amount due Pearce. From November 10, 1994, through November 15, 1994, Pearce delivered a combined total of 645 units of fancy and medium zukes to Fancy Farms which included delivery receipt ticket numbers 2144, 2162 and 2180. Pearce was paid $2,461.15 by Fancy Farms for those zukes as evidenced by the Grower Statement dated November 25, 1994 (Petitioner's exhibit 1). Fifty-three units of medium zukes on delivery receipt no. 2144 (lot no. 2144-6-38), 128 units of fancy zukes on delivery ticket 2162 (lot no. 2162-6-37), 30 units of medium zukes on delivery ticket no. 2180 (lot no. 2180-6-38) and 66 units of fancy zukes on delivery ticket no. 2180 (lot no. 2180-6-37) were not accounted for by invoice. Therefore, the price established in the Market Report of $5.00, $8.00, $6.00 and $8.00, respectively were used to calculate the amount owed Pearce for those zukes. The total amount calculated as owed to Pearce for the zukes represented by delivery receipt ticket nos. 2144, 2162 and 2180 is $3,513.00. The net difference due Pearce after deducting the amount paid to Pearce and the commission is: $3,513.00 - $2,461.15 - $351.30 = $700.55 On November 29, 1994, Pearce delivered 79 units of fancy zukes and 48 units of medium zukes for a combined total of 127 units and was paid $5.00 per unit for the fancy zukes and $3.00 per unit for the medium zukes for a total of $539.00. From invoice no. 3941 it appears that Fancy Farms made an adjustment for its customer in the price per unit for fancy zukes that was not reflected in the price per unit paid to Pearce. The price per unit of $5.00 for fancy zukes paid Pearce is more in line with the price established in the Market Report and is the price used to calculate the amount due Pearce. Invoice no. 3927 indicates that Fancy Farms was paid $3.00 per unit for medium zukes. Therefore, the amount due Pearce is: $5.00 per unit x 79 units = $ 395.00 $3.00 per unit x 48 units = $ 144.00 Total $ 539.00 Less: Ten per cent commission $ 53.90 Amount received by Pearce $ 539.00 Balance Owed by Pearce -$ 53.90 From December 1, 1994, through December 7, 1994, Pearce delivered 181 units of fancy zukes represented by lot nos. 2253-6-37, 2266-6-37 and 2290-6-37 and 160 units of medium zukes represented by lot nos. 2253-6-38, 2266-6-38 and 2290-6-38 for a combined total units of 341 units and was paid $1,385.00 for those zukes by Fancy Farms as evidenced by Pearce's Grower Statement dated December 15, 1994. The price per unit paid by Fancy Farms to Pearce was $5.00 fancy zukes and $3.00 for medium zukes. Other than 73 units of fancy zukes represented by lot no. 2253-6-37 which were billed out by Fancy Farms at $4.25 per unit, there was no evidence of the price per unit received by Fancy Farms for the balance of the fancy zukes and the medium zukes. On December 1, 1994, the Market Report shows the price per unit for fancy and medium zukes to be mostly $8.65 and mostly $6.65 per unit, respectively. Pearce should received a price of $4.25 per unit for 73 units of fancy zukes; $8.65 per unit for 30 units of fancy zukes and $6.65 per unit for 33 units of medium zukes delivered on December 1, 1994. The per unit price of $6.00 and $3.50 for fancy and medium zukes respectively, received by Fancy Farms as indicated on invoice nos. 3946 and 4049 falls within the per unit price reported in the Market Report for the dates of December 5 & 7, 1994. Therefore, Pearce should receive: $4.25 per unit x 73 units = $ 310.25 $8.65 per unit x 30 units = $ 259.50 $6.65 per unit x 33 units = $ 219.45 $6.00 per unit x 78 units = $ 468.00 $3.50 per unit x 127 units = $ 444.50 Total $1,701.70 Less: Ten percent commission $ 170.17 Amount received by Pearce $1,385.00 Amount owed Pearce $ 146.53 On December 10, 1994, Pearce delivered 39 units of medium zukes and 32 units of fancy zukes to Fancy Farms and was paid $3.50 per unit for medium zukes and $5.50 per unit for fancy zukes for a total $312.50 by Fancy Farms. There is no invoice or other evidence to show what Fancy Farms received for the above 71 units of zukes. However, the Market Report reflects that fancy zukes were selling mostly for $7.00 to $8.00 per unit and medium zukes were selling mostly for $6.00 per unit. Therefore, Pearce should receive: $7.50 per unit x 32 units = $ 240.00 $6.00 per unit x 39 units Total $ 474.00 = $ 234.00 Less: Ten percent commission $ 47.40 Amount received by Pearce $ 312.50 Amount owed Pearce $ 114.10 November 17, 1994 -$ 4.48 November 25, 1994 $ 700.55 December 7, 1994 -$(-53.90) December 15, 1994 $ 146.53 December 23, 1994 $ 114.10 SubTotal Less: Positive Adjustment/ $ 906.80 The net amount owed to Pearce by Fancy Farms: From Grower Statements dated: Grower Statement dated December 25, 1994. $ 127.00 Balance owed Pearce $ 779.80
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent Fancy Farms Sales, Inc. be ordered to pay Petitioner Lonnie Pearce the sum of $779.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2559A The parties elected not to file any proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Lonnie Pearce 1676 CR 731 Venus, Florida James A. Crocker Qualified Representative Fancy Farms Sales, Inc. 1305 W. Dr. M. L. King, Jr., Blvd. Plant City, Florida 33564-9006 Gulf Insurance Company Legal Department 4600 Fuller Drive Irving, Texas 75038-6506
The Issue The two issues to be determined are whether: (1) a violation of section 556.107(1)(a), Florida Statutes, relating to a "high-priority subsurface installation" proximately caused an "incident" under section 556.116(1)(c); and (2) if so, what fine should be imposed against the violator in an amount not to exceed $50,000.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulated facts and the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made. Stipulated Facts (Paragraphs 1 through 24) Sunshine 811 and the Incident Sunshine 811 is the free-access notification system established by the Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act (Act). See §§ 556.101-556.116, Fla. Stat. Section 556.105(1)(a) requires an excavator, before beginning any excavation or demolition, to provide Sunshine 811 with certain information that will allow a utility company to mark on the surface of the earth the horizontal route of underground facilities in the area of the proposed excavation. An excavator must notify Sunshine 811 of an upcoming excavation not less than two full business days before beginning an excavation. Such notification and resulting locate ticket remain valid for only 30 days after the notice to Sunshine 811. See § 556.105(1)(a), (c), Fla. Stat. Cougar is a site-work contractor. Cougar had a subcontract with general contractor Waltbillig & Hood, who was building a storage facility on property at or around 16641 South Tamiami Trail in Fort Myers. Among other site work, Cougar agreed to install underground storm structures. On Saturday, May 18, 2019, around 10:20 a.m., an employee and agent of Cougar, Ramiro Garcia, was operating a backhoe excavator on or near the property located at or around 16641 South Tamiami Trail in Fort Myers. While digging to install a storm structure, the excavator ruptured an eight- inch steel underground gas distribution main owned and operated by Peoples Gas. More than three months before the incident, on February 12, 2019, Cougar, through Jessica Armstrong, notified Sunshine 811 about an excavation to occur at 16721 South Tamiami Trail. Cougar requested utility locating for the "perimeter of new storage facility." In response, Sunshine 811 generated locate ticket number 043902987. Two days later, on February 14, 2019, Cougar, through Ms. Armstrong contacted Sunshine 811 to replace the previous locate ticket number 043902987. This time Cougar requested locating at a different address, 16641 South Tamiami Trail, but again requested utility locating for the "perimeter of new storage facility." In response, Sunshine 811 generated a new locate ticket number 045903523, which expressly "replace[d] Ticket #043902987," as Cougar requested. On February 14, 2019, Peoples Gas locator, Todd Gerloski, responded at 3:10:06 p.m. to the second locate ticket number 045903523, by entering "High Priority Pipeline - Marked," which confirmed that Peoples Gas had located and marked a high priority pipeline within the excavation area. The parties agree the three locate tickets with dates of February 12, 2019, locate ticket number 043902987; February 14, 2019, locate ticket number 045903523; and May 18, 2019, locate ticket number 138900287, speak for themselves. Whenever, like here, an excavation site conflicts with a high-priority gas main, Peoples Gas issues and sends to the excavator an e-mail notice with the subject line "ATTENTION: High Priority Natural Gas Pipeline in Your Work Area-PLEASE READ." The notice provides the number of the locate ticket and warns among other things: "In reference to your locate request(s), there is a high profile gas line in the area. Excavation around this line requires increased caution to prevent significant bodily injury and/or property loss." The notice also provides the locater's contact information and states: "This line has been marked; please call the [contact] below one (1) working day in advance of excavation so Peoples Gas can make arrangements to be on site if necessary. Note: the law requires the excavator to spot dig the facilities." Finally, the notice advises that "information provided by an excavator is valid for 30 calendar days." Peoples Gas's Timothy A. Easter sent this notice to Cougar's Ms. Armstrong via e-mail on February 15, 2019, at 11:02 a.m. Thus, through Mr. Gerloski and Mr. Easter, Peoples Gas identified the gas main as high priority and notified Cougar about the presence of the high-priority main. According to section 556.105(1)(c), locate ticket number 045903523, which replaced the original locate ticket number 043902987, expired on March 17, 2019. Accordingly, when the incident occurred on May 18, 2019, Cougar was digging without a valid locate ticket, in violation of the Act. Cougar's and Peoples Gas's Response to the Incident and the Incident's Impact on the Community Immediately after rupturing the gas main, Cougar's Ramiro Garcia turned off the excavator and ordered everyone to move away from the area of damage. Mr. Garcia then called 911 and his supervisor. Traffic along this section of U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail) was shut down in both directions shortly after the 911 call, but no later than 11:15 a.m. Around the same time, the area and businesses around the damage were evacuated. After receiving a report of the incident from the fire department, Peoples Gas's first responder arrived on scene at 11:06 a.m. and confirmed that the damage was to the eight-inch high-priority steel gas main, a one-way feed that serves 15,176 customers to the south and along Fort Myers Beach. To avoid losing gas service to 15,176 customers, restoration of which would require at least one visit by a Peoples Gas representative to each customer, Peoples Gas endeavored to safely keep the gas main in service while conducting the repair. In order to do so, Peoples Gas relied on the assistance of several contractors, employees, and public first responders, and delivered trucks of compressed natural gas to maintain the necessary operating pressure of the gas main downstream, while Peoples Gas conducted the repair on the section of damaged pipe. Around 2:15 p.m., the southbound lane of U.S. 41 was reopened. The southbound lane was closed for approximately three and one-half hours. The northbound lane remained closed. Around 6:00 p.m., Peoples Gas incident commander, Greg Crawford, received a phone call from Cougar's Shane Meaker. Mr. Meaker called to offer help by offering a large track hoe to help dig around the main and assist the repair. Peoples Gas accepted the offer, and a Peoples Gas contractor operated the Cougar track hoe to assist the repair. Peoples Gas successfully and safely kept the gas main in service while conducting the repair. However, gas service was lost to 17 customers, which required Peoples Gas to restore service to those customers after completing the repair. The repair effort extended overnight; Peoples Gas completed the repair, and the site was "made safe" at approximately 4:00 a.m. the next day, May 19, 2019. In total, the effort to repair the damage lasted approximately 17 hours. At 4:06 a.m., on Sunday, May 19, 2019, Peoples Gas notified the sheriff's department that the scene was safe, and shortly thereafter, northbound U.S. 41 was again open to traffic. The northbound lane was closed for approximately 17 hours. The Cost of Repair Peoples Gas awaits an invoice from one of its contractors, but the preliminary cost to repair the main and restore service to the 17 customers was $156,745.83.1/ This number comprises 53,930 therms of lost gas ($53,658), material cost ($938), equipment cost ($9,924), overtime labor ($3,200), double-time labor ($15,258), lodging and meal expenses ($453), contractor charges ($65,018), and administrative charges ($8,298). Cougar's Recent History of Violations On January 7, 2019, Cougar ruptured a four-inch underground gas main near Tiburon Way and Tidewater Key Boulevard in Estero. Although Cougar had called Sunshine 811 for a locate request on October 16, 2018, for the nearby area, the locate ticket number 289810669 had expired when the incident occurred. Peoples Gas suffered $2,571.84 in damages, and Cougar paid the claim in full. Causation If Sunshine 811 had been notified, Peoples Gas would have identified the location of the underground main with locate marks and would have sent Cougar the standard high-priority e-mail notice referenced above. Mr. Meaker confirmed that Cougar's equipment operators are well trained and recognize locate marks. Had Cougar called Sunshine 811 before commencing excavation on Saturday, May 18, 2019, the operator would have seen the locate marks and may not have struck the gas main. The record evidence contains a May 18, 2019, locate ticket number 138900287, which reflects that it was requested at 11:54 a.m. on Saturday, May 18, 2019, almost two hours after the incident occurred. Thus, Cougar was excavating without a valid locate ticket at the time of the incident described above. Cougar's failure to notify Sunshine 811 prior to commencing work on Saturday, May 18, 2019, is the proximate cause of the incident described above.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative action, as amended, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material herein, respondent, Qasem Shahinda d/b/a Ismael and Son Supermarket, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-10720, series 2- APS, for the premises located at 14528 Lincoln Boulevard, Miami, Florida. At all times material hereto, respondent was authorized to receive U.S.D.A. food stamps in exchange for food items, and had received training prior to such authorization from the United States Department of Agriculture as to, inter alia, items of merchandise which could or could not be exchanged for food stamps. In December 1992, U.S.D.A. Investigator William Bethel (Bethel) and U.S.D.A. Investigative Aide Mary Pierce (Pierce) commenced an investigation of the licensed premises to ascertain whether nor not persons associated with the premises were complying with State and Federal law regarding the acceptance of U.S.D.A. food stamps. In each instance, Bethel accompanied Pierce to the premises and provided her with the U.S.D.A. food stamps used in the investigation. On December 10, 1992, Pierce entered the license premises with $30.00 in U.S.D.A. food stamps. At or about 1:20 p.m. that date, a female clerk on the premises accepted food stamps in exchange for merchandise which, in addition to eligible items, included the following ineligible items: a six-pack of Old Milwaukee Beer, one pack of Winston cigarettes, one pack of Newport cigarettes, and one Massengill disposable douche. On April 14, 1993, Pierce entered the licensed premises with $65.00 in U.S.D.A. food stamps. At or about 12:30 p.m., another female clerk accepted $32.79 worth of food stamps in exchange for merchandise which, in addition to eligible items, included the following ineligible items: a six-pack of Old Milwaukee Beer and one pack of Newport cigarettes. 1/ On April 14, 1993, Investigator Bethel entered the licensed premises with $45.00 in U.S.D.A. food stamps in furtherance of the above described investigation. At or about 12:35 p.m., the same female clerk accepted $38.97 worth of food stamps in exchange for merchandise which, in addition to eligible items, included the following ineligible items: a six-pack of Old Milwaukee Beer, one box of Cheer detergent, and one box of Clorox dry bleach. 2/ On April 28, 1993, Pierce entered the licensed premises with $55.00 in U.S.D.A. food stamps in furtherance of the above described investigation. At or about 11:40 a.m., the same female clerk she had encountered on April 14, 1993, accepted $53.85 worth of food stamps in exchange for merchandise which, in addition to eligible items, included the following ineligible items: a six-pack of Old Milwaukee Beer, one pack of Winston cigarettes, one pack of Newport cigarettes, one roll of Reynolds Foil, and one box of Hefty kitchen bags. 3/ Pierce returned to the premises on April 28, 1993, with $65.00 in U.S.D.A. food stamps. At or about 11:55 a.m., Pierce met with the same female clerk and sold her the $65.00 in U.S.D.A. food stamps for $25.00 in United States currency. 4/ On July 19, 1993, Pierce entered the licensed premises with $140 in U.S.D.A. food stamps in furtherance of the above described investigation. At or about 12:45 p.m., a male clerk accepted food stamps in exchange for merchandise which, in addition to eligible items, included an ineligible pack of Winston cigarettes. Moreover, the same male clerk purchased from Pierce $130.00 in U.S.D.A. food stamps (two full $65.00 books) for $70.00 in United States currency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding respondent guilty of the aforesaid violations and assessing a $2,000.00 civil penalty. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of March 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 March 1995.
The Issue Whether C. Fullerton and Landscaping Co., Inc., is indebted to Other Side Sod, LLC, for the purchase of sod and pallets; and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida Limited Liability Corporation located in Arcadia, Florida, and at all times relevant hereto was a producer of agricultural products, as defined by section 604.15(9), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is also a “dealer in agricultural products” within the meaning of section 604.15(2). Respondent, during all times relevant hereto, was a “dealer in agricultural products,” within the meaning of section 604.15(2). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Great American served as surety for Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a customer of Other Side Sod. Respondent purchased sod from Petitioner and thereafter resold and installed the sod to Respondent’s customers. Petitioner sold sod to its customers on wooden pallets. An integral part of each transaction involved the pallets. There are 10 invoices in dispute which cover the period October 14, 2016, through February 10, 2017. For the underlying transactions that relate to the invoices in question, the following language is contained on each field/delivery ticket: Terms of Sale: Payment due upon receipt. All payment[s] applied to pallet balance first. Interest at the rate of 1 1/2% per month will be charged on unpaid invoice amounts after 14 days. Invoices will be charged $0.02 per square foot additional after 30 days. Purchaser agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorney fees, in [the] event it is necessary to institute suit for collection. Venue will be in DeSoto County, Florida. All Sales F.O.B. Shipping Point. On or about October 14, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47293, which showed a balance due of $462 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 83,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($1,664). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $124.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($1,664 x 7.50 percent). On or about October 23, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47378, which showed a balance due of $224 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 70,400 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($1,408). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $105.60 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($1,408 x 7.50 percent). On or about October 24, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47420, which showed a balance due of $280 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 16,000 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($320). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $24 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($320 x 7.50 percent). On or about November 13, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47549, which showed a balance due of $1,526 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 103,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($2,064). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $154.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($2,064 x 7.50 percent). On or about December 6, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47755, which showed a balance due of $434 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 30,400 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($608). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $45.60 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($608 x 7.50 percent). On or about January 8, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48093, which showed a balance due of $1,256 for 12,800 units of Bahia sod, $224 for a pallet deposit, and $72 for sales tax. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 12,800 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($256). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $19.20 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($256 x 7.50 percent). On or about December 13, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48166, which showed a balance due of $343 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 163,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($3,264). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $244.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($3,264 x 7.50 percent). On or about January 29, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48285, which showed a balance due of $3,000 for 40,000 units of Bahia sod, $308 for a pallet deposit, and $225 for sales tax (total = $3,533). On February 3, 2017, Respondent submitted to Petitioner partial payment in the amount of $3,210.50, which left an unpaid balance of $322.50. The balance remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 40,000 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($800). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $60 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($800 x 7.50 percent). On or about January 31, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48301, which showed a balance due of $390 for 5,200 units of Bahia sod, $91 for a pallet deposit, and $29.25 for sales tax (total = $510.25). On February 15, 2017, Respondent submitted to Petitioner partial payment in the amount of $468.33, which left an unpaid balance of $41.92.1/ The balance remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 5,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($104). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $7.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($104 x 7.50 percent). On or about February 10, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48409, which showed a balance due of $390 for 5,200 units of Bahia sod, $21 for a pallet deposit, and $29.25 for sales tax (total = $440.25). On February 15, 2017, Respondent submitted to Petitioner partial payment in the amount of $398.33, which left an unpaid balance of $41.92. The balance remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 5,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($104). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $7.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($104 x 7.50 percent).
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 approving the claim of Other Side Sod, LLC, against C. Fullerton and Landscaping Co., Inc., in the amount of $4,981.34. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2017, 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 7th day of November, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all relevant times, respondent, Passport Internationale, Inc. (Passport or respondent), was a seller of travel registered with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). As such, it was required to post a performance bond with the Department conditioned on the performance of contracted services. In this case, petitioner, H. Fleischer, has filed a claim against the bond for $648.95 alleging that Passport failed to perform on certain contracted services. On an undisclosed date in 1991, petitioner responded to a newspaper advertisement promoting a five-day, four-night cruise to the Bahamas for $99.00 per person. After calling a toll-free number, petitioner was told that in order to take the trip, he must purchase a video for $198.00 plus $11.95 postage, or a total of $209.95. Petitioner agreed to purchase the video in order to take advantage of the trip. The advertisement was being run by a telemarketeer in Tennessee who had been authorized to sell Passport's travel certificates. As such, it was acting as an agent on behalf of Passport. In June 1991, the assets and liabilities of Passport were assumed by Incentive Internationale Travel, Inc. (Incentive). Even so, any travel described in certificates sold after that date under the name of Passport was still protected by Passport's bond. Within seven days after receiving the video and other materials, which carried the name, address, logo and telephone number of Passport, petitioner returned the same to the telemarketeer along with a request for a refund of his money. When he did not receive a refund, he filed a complaint with the Department. In response to a Department inquiry, in December 1991 Incentive declined to issue a refund on the ground the video was purchased from a Tennessee firm, and not Passport, and Passport had never received any money from the telemarketeer. Incentive offered, however, to honor the travel certificate by allowing petitioner to purchase a trip to the Bahamas under the same terms and conditions as were previously offered. On July 6, 1992, petitioner accepted Incentive's offer and paid that firm $439.00 for additional accommodations, meals, fees and taxes. Shortly after July 24, 1992, petitioner received a letter from Incentive advising that his trip had been cancelled and that the firm had filed for bankruptcy protection. To date, petitioner has not received a refund of his money.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim of petitioner against the bond of respondent be granted, and he be reimbursed $648.95 from the bond. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Fleischer 15 Wind Ridge Road North Caldwell, NJ 07006 Michael J. Panaggio 2441 Bellevue Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Robert G. Worley, Esquire 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
The Issue Whether the Respondent Five Brothers Produce owes Petitioner an additional $13,965.00 for snap beans that Five Brothers Produce received, sold, and shipped to buyers as Petitioner's agent/broker.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Five Brothers Produce, Inc. ("Respondent" or "Five Brothers") accepts agricultural products from growers for sale or consignment and acts as an agent/broker for the growers. It has a surety bond issued by Old Republic Surety Company to secure payment of sums owed to agricultural producers. Petitioner Paul Hernandez ("Petitioner" or "Mr. Hernandez") grows snap beans. On March 26, 2010, Mr. Hernandez delivered 400 boxes of hand-picked snap beans to Five Brothers to sell. On March 27, 2010, Mr. Hernandez delivered an additional 750 boxes of snap beans to Five Brothers to sell for him. Five Brothers' Marketing Agreement and Statement included on the Grower Receipt was given to Mr. Hernandez on March 26 and 27, 2010. It provided in relevant part: The grower gives Five Brothers Produce the right to sell or consign to the general trade. No guarantees as to sales price are made and only the amounts actually received by Five Brothers Produce, less selling charges, cooler charges, and any other charges will be paid to the grower. Final settlement will be made within a reasonable length of time and may be held until payment is received from the purchaser. On March 27, 2010, Five Brothers' invoice showed that it shipped 336 of the first 400 boxes of Mr. Hernandez' beans to Nathel and Nathel, Inc., at the New York City Terminal Market. From that shipment, Five Brothers received $12.00 a box, or a total of $4,032.00. After deducting its fee of $1.60 a box, Five Brothers paid Mr. Hernandez net proceeds of $3,494.40. On the next day, Five Brothers' records show it sold the remaining 64 boxes to Tolbert Produce, Inc., for $22.70 a box. On March 26, 2010, the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") Fruit and Vegetable Market News Portal reported sales prices ranging from $24.85 to $25.85 a box for round green handpicked snap beans grown in Central and South Florida. Mr. Hernandez had reason to question the accuracy of Five Brother's invoice, given the USDA data and the Tolbert Produce sale. Nathel and Nathel also documented the sales of the 336 boxes of beans and 160 boxes of squash it received from Five Brothers. By the time of its settlement with Five Brothers, it paid a total of $5,643.50, of which $4,032.00 came from the sales of beans as reported on the Five Brothers' invoice. On March 29, 2010, Five Brothers shipped all 750 boxes of beans it received from Mr. Hernandez on March 27, 2010, to A and J Produce, Inc., at the New York City Terminal in the Bronx. Five Brothers' invoice indicated that it received $9.00 a box, or a total of $6,750.00 from A and J. Five Brother's fee for that shipment was also $1.60 a box, or a total of $1,200.00, leaving Mr. Hernandez with a net return of $5,550.00. USDA market data showed prices for the handpicked snap beans, on March 29, 2010, ranged from $20.00 to $20.85 a box. The actual cost of production for Mr. Hernandez, including seeds, water, fertilizer, and labor can range from $6.00 to $10.00 a box. He would not have paid for the labor to hand-pick beans if he had known he could not get an adequate return on his investment. Relying on the USDA data, Mr. Hernandez reasonably expected his net return to be $13,965.20, higher than it was. Five Brothers sold the beans in a rapidly declining market. Pointing to the same USDA data, Five Brothers showed the drop towards the end of March and into April 2010. On March 30, the price was down to $16.85 to $18.85. On March 31, the price was $14.85 to $16.85. And, from April 1 through April 6, a box of snap beans was selling for $10.00 to $12.85. Mr. Hernandez alleged that Five Brothers' invoice for the sale of the 750 boxes was not correct. He pointed to an exhibit that showed Five Brothers shipped A and J Produce 1344 boxes of beans, including the 750 boxes grown by him, and another exhibit that appeared to show that A and J received the 1344 boxes, on March 31, 2010, and paid Five Brothers $20.00 a box. That same A and J document, however, tracks the declining prices as each part of the shipment was sold. In the end the value was 68.82 percent of the target price of $20.00, which equals an average sales price of $13.76. After Five Brothers deducted the $1.60 a box fee, proceeds for Mr. Hernandez were approximately $12.00 a box consistent with that reported as A and J's final settlement with Five Brothers. The evidence that there was no guarantee of a sales price in the agreement, that market prices were declining rapidly, and that the receivers' documents support those of the shipper, Five Brothers, is sufficient to rebut any evidence that Mr. Hernandez is entitled to additional payments for the beans delivered to Five Brothers on March 26 and 27, 2010.
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 dismissing the complaint of Paul Hernandez against Five Brothers Produce, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 20th day of September, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the $124.00 penalty assessed against Respondent by the Department of Transportation is legally and mathematically correct.
Findings Of Fact The maximum legal weight allowed for vehicles traveling on a Florida state highway is 80,000 pounds. On November 18, 1991, a commercial motor vehicle owned and operated by Respondent was driving on State Road 15, also known as U.S. Highway 1, in Nassau County, Florida. At that time and place, DOT Weight Inspector R. S. Young weighed Respondent's vehicle on the pit scale at the Hilliard Weigh Station at approximately 23:32 (11:32 PM), using a "split weigh" method because the vehicle exceeded the 56 feet which the DOT scale would accommodate. Inspector Young filled out the Load Report indicating three separate axle weights of the vehicle with a total weight of 82,480 pounds, which exceeded the maximum weight restriction by 2,480 pounds. The fine imposed was $124.00, calculated at five cents per pound by which the scale weight of the vehicle exceeded the maximum weight of 80,000. Respondent paid the fine. The scale at the Hilliard Weigh Station which was used by Inspector Young on November 18, 1991 had been inspected and certified pursuant to statute by the Florida Department of Agriculture on July 24, 1991, four months before the weighing of Respondent's vehicle. On March 4, 1992, approximately five months after Respondent's vehicle was weighed, the Hilliard Weigh Station scale was again inspected and certified by the Florida Department of Agriculture. Neither time was there a discrepancy in true weight which would have materially affected the weighing of Respondent's truck on November 18, 1991. Affording Respondent's position every benefit of the doubt, it is possible, but not proven, that the Hilliard Weigh Station scale could have weighed 80 pounds heavier than the truck's true weight on November 18, 1991. Respondent contended that he had "split weighed" his loaded vehicle earlier on November 18, 1991 on a commercial Howe scale and that the Howe scale weight was accurate in showing his vehicle weighed under the 80,000 pound statutory limit, as opposed to the weight at the Hilliard Weigh Station later the same day, which weight showed the loaded vehicle weighed over the 80,000 pound statutory limit. All witnesses are agreed that if done correctly, a "split weigh" is reasonably accurate for multiple tandem, multiple axle vehicles longer than 51 feet, and it is unrefuted that many of these types of weigh-ins are done regularly at the Hilliard Weigh Station and throughout the industry. The method is specifically permitted for use by law enforcement, in this instance, by DOT. However, the expert testimony of Mr. Robert Garris, Supervisor of Weights and Measures for the State of Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is accepted that "split weighs" on a Howe scale are "assuredly inaccurate" because such scales are not manufactured to be used with "split weighs" and that, although DOT is authorized, for law enforcement purposes, to do "split weighs", DOT's scales also are not necessarily any more accurate for use with the "split weigh" method than the Howe commerical scale. Therefore, it is found that if it could be shown by competent evidence that the Howe scale "split weigh" and the Hilliard scale "split weigh" were each done correctly and showed different weights, one weight being "over" and one weight being "under" the statutory limit, DOT could not prevail herein by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent presented a weight ticket purportedly showing that this loaded vehicle had a gross weight of 76,600 pounds on the Howe scale at 14:29 (2:29 PM) on November 18, 1991, also achieved by a "split weigh" method. Although self-serving, Respondent's direct testimony to this effect is unrefuted, as is his direct testimony that when he weighed his loaded truck on the Howe scale, the Howe scale bore a current Florida Department of Agriculture certification seal. However, the four weights printed automatically onto the Howe scale weight ticket do not add up to the pencilled "76,600" handwritten thereon. Upon Respondent's direct testimony and supporting exhibits, it was also shown that a commercial Certified Automated Truck Scale (CAT Scale) had recorded the gross weight of Respondent's front two axles as only 19,280 pounds on October 9, 1991. The CAT scale, which renders a "full platform" gross weight, provides a more accurate gross weight than the "split weigh" method, but this weigh-in occurred approximately a month before the weighing of Respondent's truck at the Hilliard Weigh Scale on November 18, 1991 and accounted for only two axles and no load. Respondent contended that if one added together the weight of his load as stated by the shipper on his November 18 bill of lading, the manufacturer's weight of 9500 pounds as stamped on the side of the trailer, a weight he personally estimated for nylon ropes to secure the load, possible fuel intake, and the CAT weight of his vehicle's front two axles, Respondent's vehicle weight on November 18 would still have been under 80,000 pounds when it reached the Hilliard scale, and Respondent would not have been subject to an overweight assessment and fine. However, this scenario is speculative. It is speculative because of insufficient predicate for the accuracy of some of the figures named, due to the failure of the numbers on the Howe scale ticket to add up as specified by Respondent, and due to the margin for error when only two axles were weighed a month earlier on the CAT scale.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order ratifying the assessment and penalty of $124.00. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17 day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-1872 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59 (2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) Petitioner's PFOF: 1-6, 8 (There is no "6", but the unnumbered paragraph between "5" and "7" is treated as "6") Accepted. 7 Accepted in part and rejected in part because of Respondent's direct testimony which established certain facts found. Respondent's PFOF 1, 13 Accepted that some of this is what the shipper told Respondent and placed on the bill of lading, but it remains hearsay and unpersuasive on the dispositive issue of true weight in light of other exhibits and testimony. Accepted except where contrary to the probative evidence and rejected as unproven and also rejected where unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Specifically, the numbers show a print out of 4 axles, not 3, or four printed items for gross, tare and net pounds. It is not clear which. Also, the total of the four figures are in excess of legal weight limits. See Exhibit R-1. Rejected as not of record and rejected as legal or persuasive argument as opposed to a proposed finding of fact; rejected as not dispositive and as not persuasive. The first sentence is accepted. The remainder is rejected as mere legal or persuasive argument. 5-6, 8-10 Accepted except where unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 7,14 Rejected because much of this is not of record. Otherwise it is unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 20-21, 23 Accepted, except that Mr. Garris did not testify that the Howe scale was certified or accurate. This was Respondent's testimony. 11-12 Rejected as stated because not supported by the record as a whole. Covered accurately in the RO. 15-18 These calculations are rejected as speculative and not supported by any weight ticket. Legal and persuasive arguments are also rejected as not factual proposals. 19 Accepted, but unnecessary, subordinate and cumulative. 22, 24 Rejected as legal and persuasive argument only, not factual proposals. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn S. Holifield Chief, Administrative Law Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mrs. Thomas Bachota 201 North Shaffer Street Milford, Indiana 46542 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Thornton J. Williams, General Consel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether proposed rules 61D-7.021(5)(f) and 61D-7.021(5)(g) are invalid exercises of legislative delegated authority pursuant to Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2004),2 and, if so, whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of costs and attorney's fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Calder is a Florida corporation and a pari-mutuel permitholder permitted and licensed by the Department pursuant to Chapter 550, Florida Statutes. Calder seeks to challenge proposed amendments to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-7.021. Specifically, Calder challenges Subsection (5)(f), as noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 30, Number 32, August 6, 2004, and Subsection (5)(g), as noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 30, Number 21, May 21, 2004.3 The challenged amendments shall be referred to as the "Proposed Rules." The Proposed Rules provide: For tickets cashed more than 30 days after the purchase of the ticket, the ticket may not be cashed at any type of patron- operated machine or terminal. The totalisator system must be configured to instruct patrons on how to cash the ticket. The totalisator system must have the ability to identify such tickets and indicate to a teller that the ticket falls within this category. Calder is a licensed and permitted pari-mutuel facility which sells tickets and uses totalisator machines, and the Proposed Rules would govern the operation of such facility. The Proposed Rules have the effect of directly regulating the operation of Calder's pari-mutuel facility, and, as such, Calder is substantially affected by the Proposed Rules. The parties have stipulated that Calder "may properly challenge both Proposed Rules 61D-7.021(5)(f) and 61D-7.021(5)(g)." A pari-mutuel ticket evidences participation in a pari-mutuel pool. A winning or refundable pari-mutuel ticket belongs to the purchaser and may be claimed by the purchaser for a period of one year after the date the pari-mutuel ticket was issued. An "outs" or "outs ticket" is a winning or refundable pari-mutuel ticket which is not redeemed. If a ticket remains unclaimed, uncashed, or abandoned after one year from the date of issuance, such uncashed ticket escheats to the state unless the ticket was for a live race held by a thoroughbred permitholder such as Calder, in which case the funds are retained by the permitholder conducting the race. A totalisator machine is "the computer system used to accumulate wagers, record sales, calculate payoffs, and display wagering data on a display device that is located at a pari- mutuel facility." § 550.002(36), Fla. Stat. The Department was prompted to begin the rulemaking process for the Proposed Rules by two major cases involving fraud, one Florida case and one national case. The Florida case involved two totalisator employees named Dubinsky and Thompson, who allegedly accessed outs ticket information in the totalisator's central computer system, counterfeited outs tickets based on the information, and cashed the tickets at self-service machines at two pari-mutuel wagering facilities. The fraudulent conduct involved approximately $13,000. In the Florida case the fraudulent tickets were cashed several months after the tickets were said to have been issued. The fraud came to light when the ticketholder who held the true ticket attempted to cash the ticket, but could not because the fraudulent ticket had been cashed. The national case also involved a totalisator employee who cashed fraudulent outs tickets. In the national case, the fraudulent tickets were cashed less than 30 days after the date the tickets were purportedly issued. The purpose of the Proposed Rules is to deter the cashing of fraudulent tickets. The Department received comments from AmTote International, a totalisator company, at the rule workshop held during the rulemaking process and received written comments submitted by AmTote International after the workshop, indicating that the majority of tickets are cashed within six to nine days after the date of issuance. The older a ticket gets the less likely it becomes that the ticket will be cashed, and the less likely that it becomes that the cashing of a fraudulent ticket would be revealed by the true owner attempting to cash the ticket. Staff of the Department felt that by requiring that outs tickets older than 30 days be cashed by a live person, a thief would be deterred because he would be dealing with a person rather than a machine. The only thing that the self- service machine requires to redeem a ticket is a bar code, so it would be possible to submit a ticket containing nothing but the bar code and receive a voucher which could be submitted to a teller for money.4 If the fraudulent ticket looks different in anyway from a valid ticket, a teller may be able to spot the difference and question the transaction. Calder argues that the way to deter the fraud which has occurred is to stop totalisator employees from being able to print fraudulent tickets. However, the Department is also concerned about computer hackers potentially getting into the computer system which contains the outs tickets numbers and copying the bar code which could be submitted to a self-service machine. By regulating the method of cashing outs tickets, the Department is attempting to deter fraud by totalisator employees and others who may be able to access outs tickets information which could be used in producing counterfeit tickets. During the rule making process, the Department held a workshop, received written comments from the public, and held a hearing to receive comments from the public after the Proposed Rules were first noticed. The Department considered the comments it received and modified the Proposed Rules as noticed in the Notice of Change published on August 6, 2004, to accommodate some of the comments. Calder did not submit a good faith, written proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative within 21 days after the notice of the Proposed Rules was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on May 21, 2004, or after the Notice of Change was published.
The Issue Whether Respondent owes Petitioner $14,080 on account for vegetables sold and delivered at the request of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, M.O. "Buster" Williams, is an agent for the producers of agricultural products, carrots, red radishes and white corn. Respondent, Dougal M. Buie, III, d/b/a Blue Star Citrus and Vegetables, is a dealer of such products in the normal course of its business activity. Respondent is licensed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and is bonded by First Union National Bank of Florida. Petitioner sold Respondent carrots, red radishes and white corn by the truck load between the period May 19, 1993 and June 14, 1993, and was given a Bill of Lading therefor. Respondent was sent an Invoice for each shipment and payment was due in full following receipt of the Invoice. As of the date of the formal hearing, each invoice for shipments made between May 19 and June 14, 1993 remains due and owing and unpaid. The total amount of indebtedness owed by Respondent, Buie, to Petitioner is $14,080.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring Respondent to pay to the Petitioner the sum of $14,080.00 DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Robert F. Vason, Jr., Esquire Potter, Vason and Clements 308 East Fifth Avenue Mount Dora, Florida 32757 M.O. Buster Williams 1412 Raintree Lane Mount Dora, Florida 32757 Lewis Stone, Esquire P. O. Box 2048 Eustis, Florida 32727-2048 First Union National Bank of Florida 21 North Grove Street Eustis, Florida 32726
