The Issue Whether respondents owe petitioner money on account of sales of potatoes?
Findings Of Fact In order to finance his 1991 crops, petitioner Daniel Methvin of Hastings, had to borrow money at the end of the year before. To do that, he was told, he needed to execute contracts for the sale of the potatoes he intended to grow. He had been glad to have future contracts for the 1990 season, when a glut of potatoes pushed the price below three dollars a hundredweight (cwt). Respondent J.P. Mach Agri-Marketing, Inc. (or the company of which it is a subsidiary) had honored those contracts and paid considerably more than the market price for potatoes then. On November 24, 1990, Mr. Methvin executed a contract entitled "Sales Confirmation" agreeing to sell 10,000 cwt of "REPACK REDS", Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 ("92% US #1 INCH AND 1/2 MIN. AT LEAST 95% SKIN, Id.) to J.P. Mach, Inc. during the period April 28 to May 31, 1991, at $6.50 per cwt. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Consolidating smaller, earlier agreements, Mr. Methvin executed another contract entitled "Sales Confirmation" agreeing to sell 45,000 cwt of Atlantics ("85% U.S. #1") to J.P. Mach, Inc. during the period April 28 to May 31, 1991, at $5.75 per cwt, guaranteeing the potatoes would be suitable for chips. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. With these contracts (or, as to the chipping potatoes, their predecessors) as collateral, Mr. Methvin raised the funds necessary to plant. Both contracts between Mr. Methvin and J.P. Mach, Inc. had "act of god clauses" excusing Mr. Methvin's nondelivery of potatoes he failed to harvest on account of, among other things, tornadoes or hail. As it happened, tornadoes and hail prevented Mr. Methvin's reaping all he had sown. Petitioner only harvested 6,300 cwt of red potatoes and approximately 43,000 cwt of Atlantic potatoes. Another result of the bad weather was extremely high market prices, at some times exceeding $20 per cwt. On April 27, 1991, J.P. Mach visited Mr. Methvin's farm and the two men discussed incentives to keep Mr. Methvin from "jumping his contract," i.e., selling his potatoes to others at the market price. In the course of their conversation, Mr. Methvin said he needed to realize $450,000 from that year's potatoes; and Mr. Mach replied, "I will help you out", and "I will keep you in business." There was general talk of incentives and bonuses. Eventually, Mr. Mach said he would pay a premium over the contract price if Mr. Methvin fulfilled the original contracts to the fullest extent possible, by delivering all the potatoes he had; and Mr. Mach began remitting premium prices, as promised. On June 1, 1991, however, Mr. Methvin advised Mr. Mach of his intention to sell what remained of his harvest, some 1100 cwt of Atlantics, on the open market. When he carried through on this, Mr. Methvin realized approximately $200,000. Even at that, he lost $40,000 that season. Meanwhile Mr. Mach and his companies were sued for $550,000 for failure to deliver potatoes; and were not paid another $172,000 for potatoes they shipped to chip plants and others to whom they had promised still more potatoes. (Mr. Methvin was not the only grower who defaulted on contracts to ship potatoes to J.P. Mach, Inc.) As of June 1, 1991, Mr. Mach, his companies or his agents had paid Mr. Methvin "about $200,000," which was more than the contract price of the potatoes Mr. Methvin had loaded. Neither Mr. Mach nor his companies paid Mr. Methvin anything after June 1, 1991. At hearing, Mr. Methvin calculated the value of the loads as to which nothing had been remitted as of June 1, 1991, as "a few hundred more than $36,000," assuming the contract price plus the premium. But Mr. Mach and his companies or employees recalculated the price of the loads he had paid for by eliminating the premium, since Mr. Methvin had not, as promised on his side, delivered all his potatoes. J.P. Mach, Inc. was duly licensed during the 1990 season. After its license lapsed, a new license was issued to J.P. Mach Agri-Marketing, Inc. on April 24, 1991. A $50,000 certificate of deposit was filed with First Performance Bank as a condition of licensure.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's complaint be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Methvin Route 1, Box 92 Palatka, Florida 32131 Jeffrey P. Mach, President J. P. Mach Agri-Marketing, Inc. P.O. Box 7 Plover, Wisconsin 54467 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agricutlure 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, the Respondent Liz Caldwell was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0122036, and Liz Caldwell was the owner, president and qualifying broker for the Respondent Liz Caldwell Realty, Inc., a corporation registered as a real estate broker, holding license number 0181836. Waldorff Properties of Fort Walton, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. In 1983 and 1984 the principal officers included among others, Lloyd H. Waldorff, as president, and Marlin B. Waldorff, as vice president. In 1983, Waldorff Properties was the developer of a townhome project in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, known as La Mar West Townhomes. Phase One, which had already been completed prior to the time period relevant to this proceeding, consisted of six units in one building. Phase Two originally was to consist of two to three more buildings of five units each. Phase Two was expanded to include the entire balance of the project consisting of 25 units in five buildings, a pool, tennis court, clubhouse, and a boat dock. On or about June 13, 1983, an Exclusive Right of Sale Agreement was entered into between Waldorff Properties and the Respondents, wherein the Respondents would market and sell the townhome units at La Mar West Townhomes on behalf of Waldorff Properties. Thereafter, the Respondents presented to Lloyd H. Waldorff, president of Waldorff Properties, 18 Purchase Agreements, purportedly executed by 17 separate purchasers, which reflected receipt by the Respondents of 18 deposits of $1,000 each for a total of $18,000, to be held in the Respondents' escrow account. On behalf of Waldorff Properties, Lloyd H. Waldorff accepted and executed these contracts. On the strength of the 18 purchase agreements presented to Waldorff Properties by the Respondents, Lloyd H. Waldorff applied to Security Federal Savings and Loan in Panama City, Florida, for a construction loan. On November 2, 1983, Security Federal granted to Waldorff Properties a loan in the amount of $1,100,000 at 13.25 per cent interest for the construction of the La Mar West Townhome project. The 18 purchase agreements were instrumental in the approval of this loan. The project was completed in August or early September, 1984. As completion of the project approached, Lloyd H. Waldorff notified Respondent Caldwell that she needed to line up the purchasers and get ready to close on the purchase agreements. However, the purchase transactions failed to close. In October or November, 1984, Respondent Caldwell met with Lloyd H. Waldorff and, in answer to the question by Mr. Waldorff: "Liz, are these contracts bogus?", Respondent Caldwell nodded in the affirmative. Respondent Caldwell testified at a deposition taken on January 8, 1986, in a civil case in Okaloosa Circuit Court, that Lloyd Waldorff needed a construction loan to proceed with the La Mar West Townhome project, and he felt that if he had contracts for sale of the units the bank would give him the loan. She testified that Lloyd Waldorff asked her to "get up some contracts," because they were needed for the construction loan. She further testified in response to a question "did he (Lloyd Waldorff) ask you to get fraudulent contracts for him?", that "he asked me to work with him". In response to the question "did he ask you to go get bogus contracts for him?", Respondent Caldwell responded, "yes". In response to a question "he asked you to get bogus contracts that he would fraudulently submit to a construction lender?", Respondent Caldwell stated, "that is correct". Respondent Caldwell testified that "those contracts (referring to the 18 purchase agreements) were made up for Mr. Waldorff" and "they (the purchase agreements) were prepared in a couple of hours for him." She also stated under oath, "he (Lloyd Waldorff) needed a construction loan and I helped him obtain it. He asked me if we could prepare some contracts that he could take to the bank. And he felt that way, the bank would give him the loan. And we discussed it, made up the contracts and he picked them up". Finally, in this deposition Respondent Liz Caldwell adopted counsel's statement that "Our position relative to these contracts are as follows: Number one, that the contracts were prepared within a span of about two hours after a request for those contracts and delivered the next morning in total solely for the purpose of ... a construction loan. And number two, the contracts, themselves, are not enforceable contracts." "The names that appear on them are names - - some are actual purchasers; some are fictitious names..." Kelly Wilson Hill worked as secretary and bookkeeper for the Respondents from December, 1982, until June of 1984. A signature purporting to be that of Kelly Hill appears on 17 of the 18 purchase agreements as a witness to either the buyer or the seller. The name of Kelly Hill signed to the purchase agreements was not her signature, and she did not sign as a witness. There was no other employee at the Respondent's company named Kelly Hill. One of the purchase agreements showed the purchaser to be Charles Waters with an address of Sandalwood Drive in Destin, Florida. This purchase agreement is dated July 10, 1983. Charles W. Waters lives at 661 Sandalwood Drive in Destin, Florida, and he lived there on July 10, 1983. Mr. Waters acquired the house on Sandalwood Drive in 1982 through the Respondent's agency. Mr. Waters bought two other homes and a business in 1981 through the Respondent. Although a signature which purports to be Charles Waters appears on the Charles Waters purchase agreement, Charles W. Waters did not sign this agreement, and did not agree to purchase a townhome unit at La Mar West Townhomes. He did not put down a $1,000 deposit, and he had never seen the purchase agreement until a couple of months prior to the hearing. Respondent Liz Caldwell also admitted to Marlin Waldorff that the purchase agreements were not good contracts. Richard Watson has worked as a broker/salesman with the Respondents for approximately 6 years. A signature purporting to be that of Richard Watson appears on 17 of the 18 purchase agreements as a witness to either the buyer, the seller, or both. Richard Watson did affix his signature to the purchase agreements as a witness, but he did not see the buyers and/or the sellers sign the agreements. Richard Watson was aware that the purchase agreements were false, bogus contracts. Despite the written representation of Respondent Liz Caldwell on the purchase agreements that a $1,000 deposit had been received on each of the 18 purchase agreements, for a total of $18,000, and that these deposits had been placed in the Respondent's escrow account, the deposits were not received and were not placed in escrow. On July 3, 1983, the Respondents caused an advertisement to appear in the Playground Daily News in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, wherein it was stated that the La Mar West Townhome project was 95 percent sold. On July 10, 1983, the Respondents caused an advertisement to appear in the Playground Daily News in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, in which it was stated that the La Mar West Townhome project was 100 percent sold. The assertions in these advertisements were false, in that the project was neither 95 percent sold nor 100 percent sold when the ads were published.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number 0122036 held by the Respondent, Liz Caldwell, be revoked, and that license number 0181836 held by the Respondent, Liz Caldwell Realty, Inc., be revoked. THIS Recommended Order entered on this 18th day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 18th day of November, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a producer of agricultural products in the State of Florida as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (1985) At all times pertinent to this consolidated proceeding, Compton was a licensed dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (1985), issued licensed no. 502 by the Department, and bonded by Respondent St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul) in the sum of $50,000.00, Bond No. 400 EK 1860, with inception date of May 13, 1984 and expiration date of May 12, 1985; and in the sum of $50,000.00, Bond No. 400 HA 4339, with inception date of May 13, 1985 and expiration date of May 12, 1986. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, St. Paul was authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The complaints filed by Petitioner were timely filed in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes (1985) On January 7, 1985 Compton and Petitioner entered into a written contract wherein Petitioner was to deliver and Compton was to purchase 20,000 hundredweight (cwt) or 2,000,000 pounds of chipping quality potatoes, unwashed, in bulk at $5.25 per cwt F.O.B. loaded on Compton's truck at Hastings, Florida, during the 1985 potato selling season, with payment due thirty (30) days after billing and any account unpaid after thirty (30) days from the date of filing to be charged one and one-half (1 1/2) per cent per month or eighteen per cent per annum on the unpaid principal balance. Although Jim Boss (Boss), Compton's agent, located in Hastings, Florida, whose responsibility it was to arrange for trucks to haul the potatoes and notify Petitioner as to when and how the potatoes were to be loaded, was not present at all times during the loading, he had general overall authority to inspect and reject any load not in good condition and meeting the requirement of a chipping potato. From May 1, 1985 through May 7, 1985, Petitioner loaded and invoiced thirteen (13) loads of potatoes for Compton with a total of 6,105.6 cwt at $5.25/cwt for a total amount of $32,054.40 for the thirteen (13) loads. None of these potatoes have been paid for by Compton and the interest earned up until July 1, 1986 amounts to $6,709.39 for a total amount owed of $38,763.79 by Compton on these thirteen (13) loads of potatoes. These thirteen (13) loads of potatoes were sold and delivered during the time Bond No. 499 EK 1860 was in effect. From May 21, 1985 through June 13, 1985 Petitioner loaded and invoiced thirty-four (34) loads of potatoes, including a partial load on June 12, 1986, with a total of 16,391.4 cwt of which 13,894.4 cwt were invoiced at $5.25 per cwt, the contract price, and 2,497.0 cwt invoiced at $5.50 per cwt for a total amount of $86,679.10. None of these potatoes have been paid for by Compton and interest earned up until July 3, 1986 amounts to $16,661.21 for a total amount of $103,340.31 owed by Compton on these thirty-four (34) loads of potatoes. These thirty four (34) loads of potatoes were sold and delivered during the time that Bond No. 400 AA 4339 was in effect. Jim Boss did not reject any of the forty-seven (47) loads of potatoes loaded and sold to Compton by Petitioner from May 1, 1985 through June 13, 1985. The testimony of John W. Stone that the forty- seven (47) loads of potatoes were in good condition when loaded and met the requirements of a quality chipping potato and that Compton did not advise him of any problems with the condition or quality of the potatoes when received, until after the complaint had been filed, was credible. Petitioner did not receive any inspection reports or other documentary evidence from Compton or anyone else showing that the condition or the quality of the potatoes was less than that contracted for by Compton, i.e., chipping quality potatoes in good condition.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Compton be ordered to pay to the Petitioner in Case No. 86- 1073A the sum of $38,763.79 and in the Case No. 86-01188A the sum of $103,340.31. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Compton fails to timely pay the Petitioner as ordered, then St. Paul be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1985) and that the Department reimburse the Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1985). Respectfully submitted and entered this 11th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 11th day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Doyle Conner, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joe W. Kight, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John W. Stone, President John W. Stone, Inc. Post Office Box 74 Hastings, Florida 32045 Sam Compton Produce Company, Inc. 2208 Forest Avenue, Northwest Knoxville, TN 39716 St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company 385 Washington Street St. Paul, MN 55102
The Issue The issue presented is whether the bid of Intervenor Velda Farms, Inc., is responsive to and complies with Respondent's Invitation to Bid No. SB 97C-85R.
Findings Of Fact On August 15, 1996, Respondent The School District of Palm Beach County, Florida (hereinafter "School District") issued an Invitation to Bid entitled "Term Contract for Uncooked Pizza Products," soliciting vendors for the 1996-97 school year. Both Petitioner Jukebox Express Drive-In Restaurants of America, Inc. (hereinafter "Jukebox Express"), and Intervenor Velda Farms, Inc. (hereinafter "Velda Farms"), timely submitted bids. The School District opened the bids on September 11, 1996, and determined that Jukebox Express and Velda Farms, as well as five other vendors, had submitted responsive bids. The School District prepared a list of approved vendors for that contract and included Jukebox Express and Velda Farms and the other responsive vendors on that list. The cafeteria manager for each school in the School District can select any vendor from that approved list to supply pizza products to that school. Jukebox Express timely filed its protest to the School District's determination that Velda Farms should be included on the list of approved vendors for pizza products, alleging that the bid of Velda Farms was not responsive and that Velda Farms is not a responsible bidder as to the subject bid. The School District is purchasing pizza products "off-bid" from Velda Farms during the pendency of this proceeding. Velda Farms does not manufacture or prepare the pizza products it currently supplies and would supply pursuant to the School District's Invitation to Bid. It is the distributor. The pizza is manufactured by Mimmo's Gourmet Pizza, a business currently located in Pompano Beach, Florida. During the 1995-96 school year Mimmo's supplied pizza to the School District through Jukebox Express. That pizza was manufactured by Mimmo's in its Fort Lauderdale location. Jukebox Express stopped supplying Mimmo's pizza to the School District in March 1996 due to deficiencies in the quality of the product. On May 7, 1996, Mimmo's Fort Lauderdale facility was inspected by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Mimmo's received an overall rating of poor, with several critical sanitation items cited for correction within 48 hours. When the Department returned to that Fort Lauderdale facility on May 28, it discovered that Mimmo's was no longer doing business out of that facility. Instead, Mimmo's had begun doing business out of its Pompano Beach facility. It is from that facility that Mimmo's began supplying pizza products to the School District through Velda Farms in June 1996 and continuing through the time of the final hearing in this cause. No evidence was offered as to when Mimmo's obtained a permit to commence construction of its Pompano Beach facility. The records of the City of Pompano Beach reveal that on April 10, 1996, Mimmo's received approval for temporary electrical service for 30 days to test equipment. That approval did not permit operating a business at the site. That approval for temporary electrical service was never extended or renewed. Mimmo's August 6, 1996, request for a temporary certificate of occupancy for its Pompano Beach facility was denied. On September 12, 1996, Mimmo's Pompano Beach facility was "red-tagged" for failure to have a certificate of occupancy. On the following day Mimmo's applied for and received a temporary certificate of occupancy. Mimmo's did not obtain a final certificate of occupancy from the City until November 7, 1996. On September 19, 1996, the City of Pompano Beach received Mimmo's application for an occupational license which represents that Mimmo's opened for business in September 1996. The City issued an occupational license to Mimmo's that same day. Special Condition H.3. of the subject Invitation to Bid provides as follows: Vendors must have a system in place that provides for quality control and the delivery of product at consistent and specified quality levels. Vendors must have in place a system for safety and sanitation inspections assuring the delivery of product that is free from contamination and product degradation. At the time it submitted its bid and through the time of the final hearing in this cause, Velda Farms had no system in place for quality control of Mimmo's product and had no system in place for safety and sanitation inspections of Mimmo's product. Velda Farms performed no investigation of Mimmo's product or manufacturing facility before it commenced supplying Mimmo's product to the School District. Velda Farms relied solely on the fact that Mimmo's pizza was listed as an approved product in the School District's Invitation to Bid. The School District's employee who prepared the Invitation to Bid included Mimmo's pizza in the approved product list pursuant to oral information given by the director of food services that Mimmo's was tested and accepted as an approved product by the School District in May 1996 for the 1996-97 school year. That same employee is not aware of any written test report to that effect. When Velda Farms submitted its bid to the School District, it attached a letter on Velda Farms stationery which read as follows: As per our conversation, Velda Farms [sic] ability to fulfill the obligations of the Pizza Bid No. SB 97C-85R is contingent upon the following: Mimmo's Pizza's ability to supply the required amounts at the agreed pricing. Mimmo's Pizza's ability to meet the nutritional specifications and requirement of the Palm Beach County School District. I appreciate your understanding in this matter. Should you have any questions, please contact me. The statements in that letter are directly contrary to the requirements contained in Special Condition H.3. of the Invitation to Bid. Indeed, the statements in that letter render the bid submitted by Velda Farms only a conditional offer to supply pizza products. Special Condition B of the Invitation to Bid provides that the contract will be awarded to the lowest and best responsive, responsible multiple bidders. Section 6.14 of the School District's Procurement Department Purchasing Procedures were adopted as School Board policy on November 21, 1995. Section 6.14(5) provides, in part, as follows: Responsible bidder or offeror is defined as a person/firm who has the capability, in all respects, to perform the contract requirements fully and the moral and business integrity and reliability to assure good faith performance. Responsive bidder or offeror is defined as a person/firm who has submitted a bid that conforms in all material respects to the invitation for bids or request for proposals. As to the subject bid, Velda Farms is neither a responsible bidder nor a responsive bidder. Its letter attachment to its bid form represents that Velda Farms does not have the capability to fully perform the contract and that Velda Farms will not assure good faith performance. Further, its bid does not conform in all material respects to the subject Invitation to Bid. Although the School District's Procurement Department Manager suggests that the deficiencies in Velda Farms' bid can be waived by the School Board, those deficiencies are not minor. They are material deficiencies in that they involve the quality of the food in the School District's schools and the price of Velda Farms' bid. No other bidder included a condition giving itself the right to cease performance of its agreement to supply pizza products to the School District. No other bidder was advised by the School District's Procurement Department employees that the bidders could condition their bids in such a fashion. At the time Velda Farms submitted its bid and at the time the bids were opened and the School District announced the award, Mimmo's was operating illegally from a building which had not been approved for occupancy and without benefit of an occupational license. Although Velda Farms may not have known that the pizza product it was supplying to the School District at the time of the bid submittals and bid opening was manufactured without the necessary government approvals, General Condition 19 provides as follows: Legal Requirements: Federal, State, county, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations that in any manner affect the items covered herein apply. Lack of knowledge by the bidder will in no way be a cause for relief from responsibility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Intervenor Velda Farms, Inc., is not a responsible or responsive bidder for Respondent The School District of Palm Beach County, Florida's term contract for uncooked pizza products, Bid No. SB 97C-85R, and deleting Intervenor Velda Farms, Inc., from the list of approved multiple bidders under that bid award. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael B. Small, Esquire Small and Small, P.A. 324 Royal Palm Way, Suite 231 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Robert A. Rosillo, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Jim E. Solomon, Esquire Jim E. Solomon and Associates, P.A. 1180 South Powerline Road Suite Nos. 207-209 Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Dr. Joan Kowal Superintendent of Palm Beach County Schools 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a producer of agricultural products in the State of Florida as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (1983) At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Gopherbroke was a licensed dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (1983), issued license No. 4528 by the Department, and bonded by Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast (Hartford) in the sum of $25,000. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Hartford was authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The complaint filed by Petitioner was timely filed in accordance with Section 604.21(1) Florida Statutes (1983). Prior to April 1, 1985, Petitioner and Robert Neill, President of Gopherbroke, verbally agreed for Respondent Gopherbroke to act as agent in the sale of certain zucchini squash produced by Petitioner in 1985 on a net return basis, i.e. Petitioner to receive the gross sale price of the squash minus a handling fee of $0.50 per carton and a sales commission of 1/ 6.5 per cent of the gross sales price. Between April 1, 1985 and April 12, 1985 Petitioner through Tommy York delivered to Respondent Gopherbroke 84, 107 and 19 cartons of small, medium and large zucchini squash respectively for a total of 210 cartons represented by receipt tickets numbers 276-282 issued by Respondent Gopherbroke. Petitioner and Tommy York (York) had an agreement whereby York would harvest, clean, grade, package and deliver the zucchini squash produced by Petitioner to Respondent Gopherbroke for a percentage of the net proceeds derived from the sale of the squash. Respondent Gopherbroke was not a party to the agreement between Petitioner and York and was not authorized to withhold any money derived from the sale of Petitioner's squash to be paid to York under York's agreement with Petitioner. The net return on the 210 cartons of zucchini squash referred to in paragraph 6 above was $698.17 of which Petitioner has received only $349.09, the balance of $349.08 was paid to York by Respondent Gopherbroke. After April 12, 1985 York was no longer involved in the harvesting of Petitioner's squash due to a disagreement between York and Petitioner. On April 15 and 17, 1985 Petitioner delivered 30, 62 and 3 cartons of small, medium and large zucchini squash, respectively to Respondent Gopherbroke. The net return on the 95 cartons of zucchini squash referred to in paragraph 10 above was $127.35 which has been paid to Petitioner in two separate checks. However, Petitioner was not paid for 5 cartons of medium zucchini squash that Respondent Gopherbroke shows on its exhibit 2 (4/19 - 8731) as being dumped and on 21 cartons of medium zucchini squash Respondent Gopherbroke shows on its exhibit 2 (4/17 - 87298) as open but later shows a gross sale of $47.25 with charges of $10.50 for handling and $3.07 commission and an adjustment of $43.29 for a minus net proceeds to Petitioner of $9.61. The evidence is clear that the zucchini squash delivered to Respondent Gopherbroke by Petitioner on April 15 and 17, 1985 were harvested, cleaned, graded and packaged by Petitioner and his family and were of good quality when delivered. Respondent Gopherbroke presented no testimony or documentary evidence to support the dumping of the 5 cartons of squash or any justification for the adjustment on the 21 cartons of squash. On at least one occasion, Petitioner advised Respondent Gopherbroke that it was not authorized to pay York any of moneys owed to Petitioner by Respondent Gopherbroke for zucchini squash delivered by York. The price of medium zucchini squash during the period that the 5 cartons were dumped was $2.00 per carton for a gross amount of $10.00 minus the handling fee of $2.50 for a net return of $7.50. A sales commission of $0.65 had been deducted in Respondent Gopherbroke's earlier calculation. Petitioner was not furnished an account of sales within 48 hours after Respondent Gopherbroke sold the squash and the earliest payment for the squash was made 9 days after Respondent Gopherbroke had collected for Petitioner's squash.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Gopherbroke be ordered to pay to the Petitioner the sum of $399.87. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Gopherbroke fails to timely pay the Petitioner as ordered, then Respondent Hartford be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes 1983 and that the Department reimburse the Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983). Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 day of April, 1986.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner proved the elements necessary to demonstrate that she was subject to an unlawful employment practice as a result of Respondent, Bradford County Farm Bureau, maintaining a sexually-hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed by Respondent, Bradford County Farm Bureau (BCFB or Respondent). She worked for the BCFB from December 15, 2006 until January 1, 2012. The BCFB is an organization created to work for and provide support to farmers in Bradford County. The BCFB has its office in Starke, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, James Gaskins was the President of the BCFB Board of Directors. He served in that capacity as an unpaid volunteer. The alleged actions of Mr. Gaskins towards the Petitioner form the basis for her claim of employment discrimination. Section 760.10(1), provides that: It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer: To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual?s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. To limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or adversely affect any individual?s status as an employee, because of such individual?s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. Section 760.02(7) defines "employer" as follows: „Employer? means any person employing 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person. The threshold issue in this proceeding is whether the BCFB had the requisite number of employees to bring it under the jurisdiction of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 as Petitioner?s “employer.” If Petitioner fails in her proof of that issue, any discussion of acts that may have constituted sexual harassment or resulted in the creation of a sexually- hostile work environment become superfluous and unnecessary. Facts Regarding the BCFB as an “Employer” At all times relevant to this proceeding, the BCFB had two paid employees. Ms. Griffith was the office manager and bookkeeper. Ms. Linzy was a part-time secretary and receptionist, although she worked full-time when Ms. Griffith was out. Ms. Linzy retired in October, 2012. In addition to the foregoing employees, the BCFB has a five-member board of directors. Although Mr. Gaskins, who was a member of the Board, served as an unpaid volunteer, there was no evidence as to whether the remaining members were paid for their services. For purposes of this Recommended Order, it will be presumed that they were. Based solely on the number of its employees, BCFB is not an “employer” as defined by section 760.10. Therefore, in order to prove the threshold element of her claim for relief, Petitioner must establish that employees of other entities should be imputed to the BCFB due to integrated activities or common control of BCFB?s operations or employees. Petitioner presented evidence of the relationship between the BCFB, the Florida Farm Bureau, and the Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company (FFBIC) to establish the requisite integration or common control necessary to impute their employees to the BCFB. Florida Farm Bureau The Florida Farm Bureau has more than 15 employees. The Florida Farm Bureau has a mission similar to that of the BCFB of providing goods, services, and other assistance to farmers, though on a state-wide basis. Each county in Florida has an independent county farm bureau. The Florida Farm Bureau has no common corporate identity with the BCFB. The BCFB is incorporated as a legal entity unto itself. The Florida Farm Bureau and the BCFB have no common officers, directors, or employees. The Florida Farm Bureau does not share or comingle bank accounts with the BCFB. The BCFB maintains its own finances, and has a bank account with the Capital City Bank Group. The Florida Farm Bureau has no operational control over the BCFB. The BCFB Board of Directors makes all employment decisions for the BCFB, has exclusive authority to hire and fire employees of the BCFB, and has exclusive control over the pay and the terms and conditions of BCFB employees. Employees of the BCFB are paid by the BCFB, and not by the Florida Farm Bureau. The Florida Farm Bureau has the telephone numbers of all of the county farm bureaus, and can transfer calls received by the Florida Farm Bureau to any of the county farm bureaus. Other than that, as stated by Ms. Linzy, the county farm bureaus “are all on their own.” Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company The Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company is affiliated with the Florida Farm Bureau. The nature and extent of the relationship between those entities was not established. The relationship between those two entities does not affect their relationship, or lack thereof, with the BCFB. Petitioner introduced no evidence as to the FFBIC?s total number of employees. The FFBIC has no common officers or directors with the BCFB, nor do they share or comingle bank accounts. Brent Huber and Travis McAllister are insurance agents authorized to transact business on behalf of the FFBIC. They are self-employed independent contractors. Mr. Huber does business as “Brent Huber, Inc.” Neither Mr. Huber nor Mr. McAllister is an employee of the FFBIC. Mr. Huber is not employed by the BCFB, and does not perform duties on behalf of the BCFB. The evidence suggests that Mr. McAllister?s status, vis-à-vis the BCFB, is the same as that of Mr. Huber. Local FFBIC agents are selected by the FFBIC. Given the close relationship with local farmers/customers, the FFBIC selection of a local agent must be ratified by the county farm bureau in the county in which the agent is to transact business. Once ratified, an FFBIC agent cannot be terminated by the county farm bureaus. Mr. Huber and Mr. McAllister, having been appointed to transact business in Bradford County as agents of the FFBIC, maintain an office at the BCFB office in Starke. There being only four persons in the office, the relationship among them was friendly and informal. Mr. Huber described the group as “tight-knit” and “like a family.” Mr. Huber had no supervisory control over Petitioner or her work schedule. Due to the small size of the BCFB office, and limited number of persons to staff the office, Ms. Griffith?s absences would cause problems for the office as a whole. However, Mr. Huber never evaluated Ms. Griffith?s performance and never disciplined Ms. Griffith. The FFBIC provided sexual harassment, employment discrimination, workers? compensation, and minimum wage informational signs that were placed in the BCFB office break room. Those signs were “shared” between the Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company and the BCFB. Thus, the BCFB did not maintain a separate set of signs. The BCFB office has a single telephone number, and calls are routed internally. If Mr. Huber was out of the office, Petitioner or Ms. Linzy would take messages for him. If Mr. Huber was alone in the office, he would answer the telephone. Petitioner or Ms. Linzy would occasionally make appointments for Mr. Huber, and assist him when clients visited the office. Mr. Huber did not pay Petitioner or Ms. Linzy for those services. At some point, Mr. Huber and Ms. Griffith determined that it would be mutually advantageous if Ms. Griffith were allowed to speak with FFBIC customers about insurance when Mr. Huber was out of the office. To facilitate that arrangement, Ms. Griffith, at Mr. Huber?s suggestion, obtained a license as a customer service representative, which allowed her to sell policies under Mr. Huber?s insurance agent license. The customer service representative license was not a requirement of Ms. Griffith?s position with the BCFB. Ms. Griffith would sell insurance policies only when Mr. Huber was out of the office. Mr. Huber compensated Ms. Griffith for writing insurance policies through “Brent Huber, Inc.” Ms. Griffith continued to be paid as a full-time employee of the BCFB because she thought the BCFB “would be OK with it.”
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations that, based upon Petitioner's failure to meet her burden of proof to establish that Respondent, Bradford County Farm Bureau, is an “employer” as defined in section 760.02(7), the Employment Complaint of Discrimination be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert E. Larkin, III, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A. Suite 100 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jamison Jessup 557 Noremac Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether respondents owe petitioner money on account of watermelon sales?
Findings Of Fact Last spring, her first working on behalf of respondent McKay & Associates, Inc., Pat Harper nee ' Maddox accompanied Randy Finch, the company president, to Florida to help buy and ship produce. Because petitioner Bubba Hurst had sold watermelons to Ms. Harper season before last, she sought him out again. On Tuesday night, May 28, 1991, Ms. Harper orally agreed on behalf of McKay & Associates, Inc. (after Ruth Neuman, the company's secretary-treasurer, had been consulted by telephone) to pay Mr. Hurst 12 cents a pound for two truckloads of watermelons "as is." (Earlier she had seen the watermelons piled in the smaller trucks in which petitioner's crew had brought them from the fields to the melon yard, after harvesting them that day.) With Wednesday morning came a truck and driver (engaged by Ms. Harper or Mr. Finch) to haul the watermelons from petitioner's melon yard to truck scales some ten miles away, then to a farm in Denton, Georgia, for crating and transshipment to their ultimate intended destinations in Maryland and Pennsylvania. After the first truck left at 4:58 that afternoon, loaded with watermelons aggregating 43,280 pounds, Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, a second truck and driver arrived. Mr. Finch had agreed to pay Mr. Hurst cash for the watermelons, but a complication arose before they could settle that night: Only after the crew had gone home was it discovered that the second truck was overloaded by some 9,000 pounds; and the driver refused to risk the fines he might incur by hauling an overload. As a result, it was not clear exactly how many watermelons McKay & Associates, Inc. would owe petitioner for. After some discussion, Mr. Finch wrote and signed a check in petitioner's favor but left blank the amount; petitioner then endorsed and returned the check. The plan was, once the exact amount was known, for Mr. Finch to complete the check, cash it, and give Mr. Hurst the proceeds. Afterwards it occurred to Mr. Hurst that if the check were made out for more than what he was to be paid for the watermelons, he could have problems with the Internal Revenue Service. Apprehensive, he asked Mr. Finch to void the check, which he did, by writing "VOID" across it. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Later somebody filled in an amount ($5,193.60, which corresponds to the first load, 43,280 pounds at 12 cents per) and wrote "melons no good," perhaps in anticipation of a formal administrative proceeding like the present one. The check was never negotiated. On Thursday, May 30, 1991, while watermelons were being unloaded from the second truck, two men with a brief case full of cash expressed an interest in the lightening truckload. When Ms. Harper told Mr. Hurst, he said the watermelons were hers to do with as she pleased. She then sold the load to the two men for 12 cents a pound cash, and handed the money over to petitioner. The excess watermelons on the second truck had been offloaded onto a third truck. Of like capacity as the first, the third truck was empty when it accompanied the overloaded truck to the melon yard on Thursday morning. With the departure of the second truck, Ms. Harper and Mr. Finch told Mr. Hurst to fill the third truck up and agreed to buy that truckload. For a while, Mr. Finch was actually "in the line" handing some watermelons along for loading in the third truck, and rejecting others. They weighed 20 pounds each on average. Meanwhile, when Ms. Neuman saw the first truckload, after its arrival in Denton, Georgia, on Thursday morning, she exclaimed, "My God! These are sun scald[ed]!" At hearing, she testified she was incredulous Florida would let such watermelons leave the state. Ms. Neuman telephoned Mr. Finch and told him she was sending the first load back, but that she would take the other load if it "meets federal." She also called the trucking company (then reportedly owned by the late Sam Walton), however, and told the trucker not to load any more watermelons. When Evelyn Hurst, Bubba's mother, answered the telephone at the melon yard lunchtime Thursday, she was asked to tell the driver of the third truck to call home because there was an emergency. The driver made a telephone call, after which he told Mrs. Hurst nothing was wrong at his home. Then he made a second telephone call. After that call, he ordered a stop to the loading then in progress. Bubba Hurst was eating when his mother called with word that no more watermelons were being loaded onto the third truck. He then telephoned the motel where Mr. Finch was staying, and inquired. Mr. Finch told him to finish loading the third truck; and later went to the melon yard and told the driver that loading should go forward. Loading resumed. Later Mr. Finch raised with the driver the possibility of taking the load to New York, but the driver declined the suggestion. Around four o'clock Thursday, the renewed efforts to fill the third truck with watermelons came to an abrupt end, about 250 melons shy of a full load, and the driver, who had ordered the halt, drove away. Mr. Hurst called the motel, and spoke to Ms. Harper, in hope of obtaining the cash he had been promised for his watermelons, but to no avail. The next day the first truck returned from Georgia with the watermelons whose presence on the other side of the state line had so surprised Ms. Neuman; and a federal agricultural inspector, a friend of Mr. Hurst's father, arrived at petitioner's melon yard to inspect them. Mr. Hurst told the inspector (who had been called by Ms. Neuman) that he was welcome to inspect but that the whole load had been sold "as is" and that he - Mr. Hurst - would not be paying for the inspection. Hearing this, the inspector left. Disinterested testimony established that inspections by USDA- certified inspectors are routinely called for by shippers when produce is refused by buyers claiming that produce spoiled before reaching them; but that, at least in the environs of Wildwood, Florida, it is not customary to call for a federal inspection at the point from which watermelons are shipped (unless the shipment is to the Government itself.) Of course, these particular watermelons had already been to Georgia and back. After the inspector left, the driver of the first truck asked that the watermelons be removed from his truck. When Mr. Hurst told him he was trespassing and asked him to leave the melon yard, the driver (or Ms. Neuman by long distance telephone call) summoned a Sumter County deputy sheriff. But the deputy sheriff, informed upon his arrival that the melon yard was a good quarter mile on the Marion County side of the county line, left to perform other duties. Still loaded, the first truck eventually left the melon yard a second time.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DACS order McKay & Associates, Inc. to pay petitioner nine thousand seven hundred eighty seven dollars and twenty cents ($9,787.20) within fifteen (15) days of the final order. That, in the event McKay & Associates, Inc. fails to pay petitioner nine thousand seven hundred eighty seven dollars and twenty cents ($9,787.20) within fifteen (15) days of the final order, DACS order payment by State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., to the extent necessary to satisfy the requirements of Section 604.21(8), Florida Statutes (1991), for disbursal to petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, see findings of fact Nos. 5 and 6. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, petitioner said the load may have been as many as 250 melons light. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the value of the second load established by the evidence is $4,591.60, representing 38,280 pounds at 12 cents a pound. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 1 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2 and 3, Ms. Neuman's testimony that she directed her agents to procure federal inspection before the first truck left has not been credited, but she did try to arrange one later. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 4, the second truck load was never rejected. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 5 is rejected. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 6, see paragraphs 5 and 6 of the findings of fact. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7 is immaterial. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 8, Mr. Finch agreed to buy the third truckload and ordered that loading go forward even after Ms. Neuman registered her dissatisfaction with the first load. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Julian E. Harrison, Esquire 324 West Dade Avenue Bushnell, Florida 33513 John Sowa, Esquire Robert L. Rehberger, Esquire 5025 North Henry Boulevard Stockbridge, Georgia 30281
The Issue The issue is whether Boyer Produce, Inc. and its surety, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, owe petitioner $1,751.80 as alleged in the complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In July 1993, petitioner, Patricia Thomas, was given authority by her brother to sell all remaining watermelons on his farm located in Citra, Florida. This amounted to approximately one truckload. She eventually sold them to respondent, Boyer Produce, Inc., a dealer (broker) in agricultural products located in Williston, Florida. Its owner and president is Kennedy Boyer (Boyer), who represented his firm in this proceeding. As an agricultural dealer, respondent is required to obtain a license from and post a surety bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). In this case, the bond has been posted by respondent, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, and is in the amount of $75,000.00. Although the parties had never had business dealings before this transaction, through a mutual acquaintance, Randy Rowe, respondent learned that petitioner was interested in selling her watermelons. After Boyer visited the field and examined three watermelons which he described as "good," Boyer offered to purchase a truckload for 4 per pound if all melons were of the same quality. Thomas declined and counteroffered with a price of 5 per pound. The parties then agreed to split the difference and arrived at a sales price of 4 per pound. During the negotiations, Rowe acted as an intermediary between the parties and observed the formation of the contract as well as the loading of the goods onto the truck. Although the matter is in dispute, it is found that both parties agreed that Thomas would be paid 4 per pound for "good" watermelons delivered. This meant that petitioner would not be paid unless and until the watermelons were delivered to their final destination in "good" condition. In the trade, being in "good condition" meant that the watermelons would meet U. S. Grade No. 1 standards. Respondent also agreed to provide a truck and driver at petitioner's field and to transport the produce to Brooklyn, New York, the final destination. At the same time, petitioner was given the responsibility of loading the watermelons on the truck. To assist petitioner in meeting her up- front labor costs, respondent advanced $500.00 as partial payment for the shipment. Winston Smith was hired by respondent to transport the melons to New York. He arrived at petitioner's field on Saturday, July 16, 1993, and remained there while approximately 46,000 pounds of melons were loaded on an open top flat bed trailer. One of the loaders said the melons were "packed real tight," and four bales of straw were used in packing. According to Rowe, who observed the loading, the watermelons packed that day were in "good" condition, and any nonconforming watermelons were "kicked" off the truck. Also, by way of admission, the driver, as agent for Boyer, acknowledged to Rowe that the melons loaded were in "good" condition. Late that afternoon, a thunderstorm came through the area and, due to lightening, no further loading could be performed. Since around 46,000 pounds had already been loaded, petitioner desired for the truck to be sent on its way north. Smith, however, told petitioner he wanted 50,000 pounds in order to make his trip to New York worthwhile and he would not go with anything less. Acceding to his wishes, petitioner agreed to meet Smith the next morning and load an additional two hundred watermelons, or 4,000 pounds, on the truck. Smith then drove the loaded truck to a nearby motel where he spent the night. That evening it rained, and this resulted in the uncovered watermelons and straw getting wet. The next morning, Smith telephoned petitioner and advised her to meet him at 9:00 a. m. at a local Starvin' Marvin store, which had a weight scale that could certify the weight of the shipment. Petitioner carried two hundred watermelons to the store at 9:00 a. m., but Smith did not arrive. Around noon, she received a call from Smith advising that his truck was broken down at the motel and would not start. The watermelons were then taken to the motel and loaded onto the trailer. In all, 50,040 pounds were loaded. Smith's truck would still not start after the watermelons were loaded, and Smith refused to spend any money out of his own pocket to repair the truck. Not wanting to delay the shipment any longer, petitioner gave Smith $35.00 to have someone assist him in starting the vehicle. In order for the repairs to be made, the loaded trailer had to be jacked up and the truck unhooked from and later rehooked to the trailer. This was accomplished only with great difficulty, and Smith was forced to "jostle" the trailer with the power unit for some two hours altogether. According to Rowe, he warned Smith that such jostling could bruise the melons and "mess them up." Smith was also cautioned early on that he should make the necessary repairs as soon as possible so that the load of watermelons would not continue to sit uncovered in the sun. The truck eventually departed around 9:00 p. m., Sunday evening after the uncovered trailer had sat in the sun all day. The shipment was delivered to Brooklyn on the following Tuesday afternoon or evening, and it was inspected by a government inspector on Wednesday morning. According to the inspection report, which has been received in evidence, the load was split evenly between crimson and jubilee melons, and 23 percent and 21 percent, respectively, of the two types of melons failed to meet grade. No greater than a 12 percent "margin" is allowed on government inspections. Almost all of the defects cited in the report were attributable to the melons being "over-ripe." The buyer in New York rejected the entire shipment as not meeting standards. Respondent then sold the shipment for only $1350.00 resulting in a loss of $350.00 on the transaction. In addition, respondent says the driver (Smith) accepted $1200.00 instead of the $2,000.00 he would have normally charged to transport a load to New York. When petitioner asked for her money a few weeks later, respondent declined, saying the goods had not met specification when delivered to their destination, and if she had any remedy at all, it was against Smith, the driver. If petitioner had been paid 4 per pound for the entire shipment, she would have been entitled to an additional $1,751.80, or a total of $2,251.80. Petitioner contends that the melons failed to meet grade because of the negligence of the driver. More specifically, she says the loaded melons sat in the sun for almost two days, including all day Sunday after being soaked from the Saturday evening rain. If wet melons are exposed to the hot sun for any length of time, they run the risk of "wet burning," which causes decay. But even if this occurred, only 1 percent of the shipment was found to have "decay" by the government inspector. Petitioner also says that by being jostled for two hours on Sunday, the melons were bruised. Again, however, the melons were rejected primarily because they were over-ripe, not bruised. Therefore, and consistent with the findings in the inspection report, it is found that the jostling and wet burning did not have a material impact on the quality of the melons. Respondent contended the melons were close to being fully ripened when they were picked and loaded. In this regard, Charles Strange, Sr. agreed that if the melons sat in the field for another four or five days, they would have started "going bad." By this, it may be reasonably inferred that, unless the melons were loaded and delivered in a timely manner, they would have become over-ripe and would not meet grade within a matter of days. Therefore, a timely delivery of the melons was extremely important, and to the extent respondent's agent, Smith, experienced at least a twenty-four hour delay in delivering the melons through no fault of petitioner, this contributed in part to their failure to meet grade. Petitioner is accordingly entitled to some additional compensation, a fair allocation of which is one-half of the value of the shipment, or $1125.90, less the $500.00 already paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services requiring respondent to pay petitioner $625.90 within thirty days from date of the agency's final order. In the event such payment is not timely made, the surety should be liable for such payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard A. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company Post Office Box 1985 Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1985 Patricia Thomas Post Office Box 522 Archer, Florida 32618 Kennedy Boyer 15A South West 2nd Avenue Williston, Florida 32696
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents owe Petitioner $13,512.09 for watermelons, as alleged in the Amended Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. Cook Brown Farms is a melon farm in Punta Gorda, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Cook Brown Farms was a "producer" as defined in Subsection 604.15(5), Florida Statutes, of agricultural products in the State of Florida. Melons come within the definition of "agricultural products" as defined in Subsection 604.15(3), Florida Statutes. J.G.L. Produce is a Florida Corporation, owned by John W. Johnson, Jr., and located in Pompano Beach, Florida. At times pertinent to this proceeding, J.G.L. Produce was licensed as a "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in Subsection 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Andrew J. Cook, a principal owner of Cook Brown Farms, and Mr. Johnson of J.G.L. Produce entered into an oral agreement regarding the sale of watermelons grown at Cook Brown Farms. The core of this case is a dispute concerning the nature of this agreement. Mr. Cook testified that, under the agreement, J.G.L. Produce would purchase the melons at the farm at their daily market price, plus 1/2 cent to cover Cook Brown Farms' cost of picking, sorting, and placing the melons in special bins and in special pallets required by the ultimate purchaser, Kroger Supermarkets. J.G.L. Produce would provide the bins and pallets and would provide the trucks to ship the melons. Mr. Johnson testified that the agreement was not for purchase but for brokerage of the melons. J.G.L. Produce would act as broker of Cook Brown Farms' watermelons, use its best efforts to sell the melons at the highest price available, and pay Cook Brown Farms the proceeds of the sale, minus expenses and a brokerage fee of one cent per pound. Mr. Johnson testified that J.G.L. Produce never took title to or purchased the melons, and that the risk of loss always remained on Cook Brown Farms. Mr. Johnson testified that he approached Mr. Cook about the melons because he had a ready buyer in another local dealer, Delk Produce, which had a longstanding arrangement to provide melons to Kroger. Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Cook that the arrangement included the provision of bins and pallets by J.G.L. Produce, though Mr. Johnson stated that the arrangement also called for J.G.L. Produce to retain $0.015 per pound from the amount paid to Cook Brown Farms to cover the cost of the bins and pallets. J.G.L. Produce took approximately 24 truck loads of watermelons from Cook Brown Farms. J.G.L. Produce deducted a one cent per pound brokerage fee from each load of melons it took, except for certain loads noted below, without contemporaneous objection from Cook Brown Farms. The Amended Complaint claims that J.G.L. Produce owes money to Cook Brown Farms for five of the loads taken by J.G.L. Produce. In sum, the Amended Complaint states that J.G.L. Produce owes Cook Brown Farms $19,991.74 for the five loads, less $6,479.65 already paid, for a total owing of $13,512.09. Item One of the Amended Complaint alleges that J.G.L. Produce owes $4,438.54 for a load of 38,596 pounds at a price of $0.115 per pound, sold on April 20, 2000. Item Two of the Amended Complaint alleges that J.G.L. Produce owes $4,625.30 for a load of 40,220 pounds at a price of $0.115 per pound, sold on April 21, 2000. The Amended Complaint alleges that the melons on these two loads were inspected and approved for shipment during loading by Delk Produce employee Freddie Ellis. The Amended Complaint states that Cook Brown Farms was paid in full for the loads on May 3, 2000, but that the contested amounts were deducted from subsequent settlements by J.G.L. Produce. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Item One were initially sold to Delk Produce for delivery to Kroger. On May 3, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid Cook Brown Farms the amount of $4,438.54, which constituted the price for 38,596 pounds of melons at $0.125 per pound, less $385.96 for the one cent per pound brokerage fee. Jay Delk, the principal of Delk Produce, testified that this load was rejected by Kroger's buyer in Virginia due to "freshness," meaning that the melons were unsuitably green. Mr. Delk stated that the melons were taken to North Carolina to ripen and eventually sold at $0.06 per pound. The final return on this load, less the brokerage fee, was $1,543.84. In its final settlement with Cook Brown Farms on May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce deducted the difference between the original payment of $4,438.54 and the final payment of $1,543.84. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Item Two were initially sold to Delk Produce. On May 3, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid Cook Brown Farms the amount of $5,809.80, which constituted the price for 50,520 pounds of watermelons at $0.125 per pound, less $505.20 for the one cent per pound brokerage fee. Seminole Produce purchased 10,300 pounds of this load at $0.145 per pound, or $1,493.50. The remainder of the load was rejected by Kroger due to freshness and had to be resold at a lesser price of $0.0346 per pound, or $1,391.00. In its final settlement with Cook Brown Farms on May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce deducted the difference between the original payment of $5,809.80 and the final payment (after deduction of the brokerage fee) of $2,576.11. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Item Three were sold to Delk Produce. On May 9, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid Cook Brown Farms the amount of $2,731.30, which constituted the price for 42,020 pounds of watermelons at $0.0675 per pound, less $105.05 for the brokerage fee, reduced to $0.0025 per pound. Mr. Johnson testified that he decided to forego the full brokerage fee to save money for Mr. Cook and his farm, because it was "hurting" due to the rapidly plummeting price for watermelons. Mr. Johnson discovered at this time that Delk Produce had not been retaining the agreed- upon $0.015 per pound to cover the cost of bins and pallets and decided not to lose any more money on that item. In its final settlement with Cook Brown Farms on May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce deducted the difference between the original payment of $2,731.30 and $2,206.05, deducting $525.25 from the original payment to cover the cost of the bins and pallets. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Items Four and Five were originally shipped to Wal-Mart in Kentucky on April 29, 2000, and were rejected on the ground that the melons were not packed to specifications. The melons were trucked back to Florida at J.G.L. Produce's expense. The melons claimed under Item Four totaled 41,100 pounds. J.G.L. Produce divided the melons into four loads and sold them to four local dealers at an average price of $0.775 per pound, totaling $3,185.41. J.G.L. Produce deducted its $0.015 charge for bins and pallets, reducing the total to $2,671.51. J.G.L. Produce then deducted $1,750.00 from the total as reimbursement for the freight charge it paid to bring the melons back to Florida after their rejection by Wal-Mart. J.G.L. Produce did not include a brokerage fee. On May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid the remaining $921.51 to Cook Brown Farms as part of the final settlement. The melons claimed under Item Five totaled 45,600 pounds. J.G.L. Produce sold 2,426 pounds to Seminole Produce at $0.10 per pound, or $242.60. J.G.L. Produce sold the remaining 43,174 pounds to Belle Glade Produce at $0.065 per pound, or $2,800. From the total for Item Five, J.G.L. Produce deducted its $0.015 charge for bins and pallets and $1,950.00 for the freight charge it paid to bring the melons back to Florida after their rejection by Wal-Mart. J.G.L. Produce did not include a brokerage fee on this load of melons. On May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid the remaining $416.64 to Cook Brown Farms as part of the final settlement. The weight of the credible evidence, excluding the hearsay that was not supported by the direct testimony of Mr. Johnson, leads to the finding that there was a brokerage arrangement between the parties. J.G.L. Produce routinely deducted brokerage fees from its payments, without objection by Cook Brown Farms. This course of dealing strongly indicates a brokerage arrangement. Mr. Cook testified as to prior dealings with J.G.L. Produce, which also involved a brokerage arrangement. The evidence indicated that J.G.L. Produce fully accounted for the five loads of melons at issue, and paid Cook Brown Farms the full amounts due and owing for those loads.
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 Amended Complaint filed by Gin Brown Matthews, d/b/a Cook Brown Farms. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Redland Insurance Company 222 South 15th Street, Suite 600, North Omaha, Nebraska 65102 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 John W. Johnson, President Post Office Box 1123 Pompano Beach, Florida 33061 Harold M. Stevens, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1440 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Edward L. Myrick, Jr., Esquire Beighley & Myrick, P.A. 1255 West Atlantic Boulevard Suite F-2 Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Terry L. Rhodes Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
