Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact: Respondent holds a license issued by Petitioner which permits it to engage in the business of a motor vehicle dealer at 9901 N.W. 80th Avenue, Bay 3C, Hialeah Gardens, Florida. On Friday, September 9, 1988, during normal business hours, Karen Reyes, who is employed by Petitioner as a License and Registration Inspector, visited this location to attempt to conduct an annual inspection of Respondent's records. The doors to the warehouse where the business was supposed to be located were closed and locked and no one was around the dealership. Reyes left a note requesting that a representative of the dealership contact her. She then-departed. Reyes returned to the location on Tuesday, September 20, 1988. Although it was mid-morning, the warehouse doors were closed and locked and there was no one present. Before departing, Reyes left a second note asking that she be contacted by someone from the dealership. The following day Reyes attempted to telephone the dealership. No one answered the phone, however, when she called. Reyes reported her findings to her supervisor. As a result, on October 20, 1988, Respondent's President, Javier F. Rodriquez, was sent a letter in which he was advised that Petitioner proposed to revoke Respondent's motor vehicle dealer license on the ground that Respondent had closed and abandoned its licensed location. The letter further advised that Respondent had the right to request a formal hearing before any final action was taken against it. Rodriquez responded to the letter by requesting a hearing at which he would have the opportunity to present proof that the dealership had not been closed or abandoned. In view of this response, Reyes was instructed by her supervisor to pay another visit to the dealership. She made this visit on Tuesday, November 8, 1988. This time she encountered two men at the location. There were also a couple of cars there as well. One of the men, who claimed to be a representative of the dealership, telephoned Rodriquez's wife and had her speak with Reyes. During their telephone conversation, Mrs. Rodriquez informed Reyes that her husband was still active in the automobile sales business, but that he was conducting his business at their home. At the conclusion of their discussion, Reyes asked Mrs. Rodriquez to have her husband call Reyes' office. Mr. Rodriquez telephoned Reyes' office on November 16, 1988. Reyes was not in, so Rodriquez left a message. Later, that day, Reyes returned the call, but was unable to reach Rodriquez. The following day, Reyes went back to the dealership, where she found the same two men she had met there on November 8, 1988. Rodriquez, however, was not at the dealership. Reyes therefore left. She came back later in the day. This time Mr. Rodriquez was present and he spoke with Reyes. When asked by Reyes why there was no business activity nor records at the licensed business location, Rodriquez responded that the dealership was now open every day from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. He provided Reyes with no additional information. Reyes revisited the dealership on Friday, January 13, 1989, Wednesday, January 18, 1989, Thursday, January 19, 1989, and Monday, January 23, 1989, during normal business hours. On each of these occasions, she found no one at the location and the doors to the warehouse closed and locked. She made another visit on Monday, January 30, 1989. Although it was during normal business hours, there was no indication of any activity at the dealership. Furthermore, the sign which had identified the business had been removed. This prompted Reyes to speak with the leasing agent at the warehouse complex. The leasing agent told Reyes that Respondent was no longer occupying space at the complex.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's motor vehicle dealer license. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Neil Kirkman Building, A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Javier F. Rodriquez, President Inrodar Auto Sales, Inc. 9901 N.W. 80th Avenue, Bay 3C Hialeah Gardens, Florida 33016 Charles J. Brantley, Director Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, Esquire General Counsel Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents committed the offenses described in an Administrative Complaint entered by Petitioner on or about January 10, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for enforcing the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act, Sections 559.901-559.9221, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Respondent, Adam's Street Muffler Shop and Service Center, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Adam's Street Muffler"), is a dissolved Florida corporation. Adam's Street Muffler is located at 1401 South Adam's Street, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Adam's Street Muffler is registered with the Department under the Act as a motor vehicle repair shop. The Department has assigned registration number MV-15484 to Adam's Street Muffler. Respondent, Tim Tanner, is the owner and operator of Adam's Street Muffler. At the time that Adam's Street Muffler register pursuant to the Act, a registration packet, including a copy of the Act, was provided to Adam's Street Muffler. On July 24, 1995, Robert Dan Drake, an investigator with the Department's Bureau of Motor Vehicle Repair, went to Adam's Street Muffler. Mr. Drake performed a compliance audit to determine whether repair estimate statements and invoices for services were in compliance with Sections 559.905 and 559.911, Florida Statutes. A copy of the repair invoice provided by Adam's Street Muffler personnel to Mr. Drake was determined not to be in compliance with Sections 559.905 and 559.911, Florida Statutes. See Petitioner's Exhibit 9. Mr. Drake discussed the requirements of the Act pertaining to repair estimates and invoices with Peggy Folsom, the secretary for Adam's Street Muffler. Mr. Drake also provided an On-Site Inspection Report/Citation (Petitioner's Exhibit 7), and a Compliance Checklist/Citation (Petitioner's Exhibit 8), to Ms. Folsom. These forms described the deficiencies with the repair estimate and invoice form being used by Adam's Street Muffler. Adam's Street Muffler was given thirty days to correct the repair estimate and invoice. A revised form was submitted to the Department. See Petitioner's Exhibit 10. The corrected form was accepted by the Department. On July 1, 1996, Mr. Drake returned to Adam's Street Muffler. Mr. Drake discovered that the repair estimate and invoice used by Adam's Street Muffler for a complaining customer was the same form that he had found to be deficient on July 24, 1995. See Petitioner's Exhibit 12. Mr. Drake issued a second On-Site Inspection Report/Citation to Adam's Street Muffler as a result of the July 1, 1996 visit. Petitioner's Exhibit 11. The report again described the specific deficiencies with the repair estimate and invoice form being used by Adam's Street Muffler. On October 1, 1996, Mr. Tanner paid a $300.00 fine for violating Sections 559.905 and 559.911, Florida Statutes. On December 1, 1996, two months after Mr. Tanner paid the fine, and approximately six months after the second violation of the Act, Dan Keller, an employee of the Department, visited Adam's Street Muffler. Mr. Keller examined forms titled "Repair Orders" in the files of Adam's Street Muffler. The forms discovered by Mr. Keller were determined not to be in compliance with Sections 559.905 and 559.911, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-5. The forms copied by Mr. Keller on December 1, 1996, were used as repair estimates and invoices for services performed. The evidence failed to prove when the vehicles at issue were brought to Adam's Street Muffler, that they were not brought to Adam's Street Muffler by person other than the owner, or that Adam's Street Muffler did not notify the customer pursuant to Section 559.909(1), Florida Statutes. None of the owners of the vehicles to which Petitioner's Exhibits 1-5 relate have filed a complaint with the Department concerning work performed by Adam's Street Muffler. The repairs evidence by Petitioner's Exhibits 1-5 were for repair work costing in excess of $50.00. The forms taken from Adam's Street Muffler on July 24, 1995, July 1, 1996, and December 1, 1996 are incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. On or about January 10, 1997, the Department entered an Administrative Complaint against Adam's Street Muffler and Mr. Tanner. The Administrative Complaint contains two counts against Respondents: one for alleged violations of Section 559.905, Florida Statutes, and one for alleged violations of Section 559.911, Florida Statutes. Both counts relate the forms obtained by the Department in December of 1996.
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 finding that Adam's Street Muffler Shop and Service Center, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Tim Tanner, individually and as Director of Adam's Street Muffler Shop and Service Center, Inc., violated Section 559.911, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint entered January 10, 1997. IT IF FUTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondents be required to pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 within thirty days of the date that the Final Order becomes final and the motor vehicle repair shop registration, MV-15484, issued to Respondents be suspended for a period of two weeks. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 27th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence J. Davis, Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 J. Joseph Hughes, Esquire 1017-A Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6221 Honorable Bob Crawford Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 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 Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Bureau of Licensing and Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified general contractor and the holder of license number CG C050853 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Reliable Remodelers, a division of Action Bay Marine Company, Inc., and as such qualifying agent was responsible for all its contracting activities. On March 9, 1993, Joel Broder while representing himself to be vice president of Reliable Remodelers, executed a contract with Louise Rodney and Astrid Lamand wherein Reliable Remodelers agreed to perform certain roofing and carpet work at the residence of Yves and Louise Rodney at 35 N.W. 115 Street, Miami, Florida. The reason Astrid Lamand signed this contract was not established. The work to be done on the Rodney residence was in repair of damages caused by Hurricane Andrew. The costs of these repairs were to be paid by insurance proceeds. The price for this work to be performed by Reliable Remodelers, including materials, was $10,650.00. According to the terms of the contract, $200 was due as a down payment on or about March 9, 1993, and the remainder was due on completion of the work. Ms. Rodney gave Mr. Broder two checks as deposits toward the work to be done. The first was a check in the amount of $200.00 on March 9, 1993, the date the contract was signed. Mr. Broder told Ms. Rodney on March 9, 1993, to call him when her insurance settlement came in so he could come back for an additional check and thereafter begin work. On April 11, 1993, Ms. Rodney advised Mr. Broder by telephone that she had received her insurance settlement. On April 12, 1993, Ms. Rodney paid to Mr. Broder the second check, which was in the amount of $3,000.00. On April 13, 1993, Mr. Broder told the Rodneys that work would begin on the house in three days. Ms. Rodney made both of these checks payable to Joel Broder personally because Mr. Broder instructed her to do so. Mr. Broder assured her that it was acceptable to make these two deposit checks to him personally because of his position as a vice-president of Reliable Remodelers. Mr. Broder indicated that the final check would be made payable to Reliable Remodelers. Reliable Remodelers never began work on the subject contract. No building permit was ever pulled for the project described in the subject contract. A local building department building permit would have been required for beginning work on the roofing portion of the project described in the subject contract. The Rodneys never received a refund of the $3,200.00 paid to Joel Broder. Louise Rodney was justified in believing Mr. Broder was an authorized representative of Reliable Remodelers. Mr. Broder presented a business card and a contract with Reliable Remodelers' name and address and Respondent's general contractor's license number printed on the contract. Mr. Broder was employed by Reliable Remodelers and had the authority to negotiate contracts on its behalf with the public. Richard Levin, a corporate officer of Reliable Remodelers at the time of the Rodney contract, knew that Mr. Broder was representing Reliable Remodelers in a contract sales capacity at the time of the Rodney contract. Between April 13, 1993, and the end of June 1993 Louise Rodney and her husband, Yves Rodney, repeatedly called Mr. Broder at Reliable Remodelers, but were never able to get Mr. Broder or Reliable Remodelers to start work. When Mr. or Ms. Rodney called the number provided by Mr. Broder, he or she would sometimes get Mr. Broder, sometimes get an answering machine, and sometimes get a lady who answered the phone "Reliable Remodelers." Mr. Broder repeatedly made excuses to the Rodneys about why the job did not begin. Sometime around the end of June or early July, Ms. Rodney called Mr. Broder and demanded a return of her money. Mr. Broder told Ms. Rodney that he could not refund the money until the end of July because he never wrote checks until the middle of the month. Mr. Broder did promise to return the money to Louise Rodney by the end of July 1993. In July 1993, Ms. Rodney filed a complaint with the Metro Dade Building and Zoning Department against Reliable Remodelers and Joel Broder. On July 23, 1993, Ms. Rodney filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation against Joel Broder and Reliable Remodelers. In late August or early September 1993, Mr. Broder contacted Ms. Rodney by telephone about the refund. This telephone contact was after a representative from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation had contacted Mr. Broder about Ms. Rodney's complaint. In that telephone conversation Mr. Broder discussed the possibility of refunding to Ms. Rodney her deposit, but he insisted on keeping $200.00 of the $3,200.00. On or about September 10, 1993, the Respondent executed and sent Louise Rodney a letter on Reliable Remodelers letterhead. A copy of the letter was sent to the Department of Professional Regulation. This letter provided, in part, as follows: You have expressed a desire to be released from our contract dated March 9, 1993, for work in the amount of $10,650.00. We want to make it clear that we have been pro- hibited from fulfilling the terms of our contract by unreasonable and impractical demands by you, the Homeowners, as to how the work should proceed, i.e., demanding that roof tiles be loaded on the roof before it is hot mopped. 1/ Although your request at this time is not in accordance with the cancellation terms of our contract, we feel it would be in the best interest of all parties to grant your request. We do however, require written notification of your intent to cancel. Notarized signatures on this document will suffice. Upon receipt of this executed document we will initiate refund procedures. Your deposit of $3,200.00 will be returned to you within thirty (30) days. This allows us time to recoup binders issued for your job. Of course we have incurred some expenses in the set up for performing our contractual obligation. These, in excess of $400.00, we will overlook. Please endorse and have notarized the statement below and return this document to us promptly. The letter of September 10, 1993, contained a release clause that Ms. Rodney and Mr. Astride were to sign and have notarized before any refund was to be forthcoming. Sometime just after September 13, 1994, in the evening, three men came to the Rodney home with a copy of the letter signed by the Respondent on September 10, 1993. One of these three men was Jules Lindsor, a corporate officer of Reliable Remodelers. Mr. Lindsor falsely identified himself to the Rodneys as being Gary S. Sachs. These three men were trying to procure the Rodneys' signature on a release from the subject contract. The Rodneys refused to sign the release because there was no refund present and because they wanted to consult a lawyer before signing. Sometime after September 13, 1993, the Rodneys executed a release and mailed it to Reliable Remodelers. At the time of entering the contract with Reliable Remodelers the Rodney home was leaking from damage caused by Hurricane Andrew. The leaks were finally repaired between April and June 1994 by persons other than Reliable Remodelers. Respondent and Reliable Remodelers ratified the contract that Mr. Broder executed on its behalf. There was no evidence that Respondent or Reliable Remodelers ever repudiated the contract as a Reliable Remodelers contract, that there was any effort to perform the contract, or that there was a tender of a refund of the $3,200.00 paid by Louise Rodney. There was no evidence that Reliable Remodelers had any justifiable excuse for its failure to perform any work pursuant to its contract with Ms. Rodney and Mr. Astride.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $3,500.00 to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, pay restitution to Louise Rodney in the amount of $3,200, and pay costs incurred in the prosecution of this proceeding in the amount to be determined by the Petitioner. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of November 1994. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 14th day of November 1994.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be licensed as an independent motor vehicle dealer in Florida.
Findings Of Fact By stipulation of fact, the parties agreed: Petitioner applied for a motor vehicle dealer's license for a dealership to be operated at 2401 Central Avenue in St. Petersburg, Florida. The application was denied by the Department because it appears the applicant has no experience in the motor vehicle business and, in fact, applied for the license to allow an individual by the name of Lloyd Blocker to operate and have continued involvement in the motor vehicle business. Petitioner was aware at the time of his application that Mr. Blocker had been denied a motor vehicle license in Florida in February 1994 and had been convicted of a felony in Alaska involving the unlawful rolling back of odometers in motor vehicles. In addition, Mr. Rinier was aware that the Department of Motor Vehicles would not allow Mr. Blocker to hold a license to deal in motor vehicles in Florida. Mr. Rinier and Mr. Blocker have an ongoing business dealing with the sale of motor vehicles. Mr. Rinier knows and knew at all times pertinent hereto that Mr. Blocker could not operate such a business on his own. The Department of Motor Vehicles contends that Mr. Blocker cannot operate or be involved in any facet of the motor vehicle business in any capacity. If Mr. Rinier were to provide written assurances that Mr. Blocker would not be involved in any way with a business operated under a license if issued, it would issue a license, assuming Mr. Rinier were otherwise qualified for licensure. Mr. Rinier is unwilling to provide that assurance in writing. However, Petitioner contends his sole desire is to make money from the operation of a dealership. If the license were issued, ownership of the business would be and remain in the Petitioner's name. He had already paid lease costs and all other costs relating to the business, and he will not operate it without Mr. Blocker's participation in some form. The present relationship with Mr. Blocker involves sale of the buildings where the dealership would operate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order denying a motor vehicle dealer license to Petitioner, Harvey G. Rinier. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Waller, Esquire John L. Waller, P.A. 467 Second Avenue, North _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1997. St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Gabrielle L. A. Taylor, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Mr. Arthur is the owner of Mustang Speed and Restoration (MS&R), a motor vehicle repair shop. MS&R’s physical address is 12545 44th Street North, Suite D, Clearwater, Florida. 4 Exhibit 9 is a composite exhibit of seven black and white photocopied photographs. Three of the photographs were identified as sand in the back seat of the Jeep; two photographs were of the Jeep parked; one photograph identified a pair of “pink” panties; and one photograph contained two “ZAFUL FOREVER YOUNG” tags. Only the photographs of the parked Jeep and the tags were clear. Mr. Arthur filed a motor vehicle repair registration application to renew MS&R’s license in March 2019. The application contained MS&R’s registration number as MV87835. Additionally, the application contained the following “Application Certification:” I certify that this applicant is aware of and complies with all of the requirements of ss. 559.901-559.9221, F.S., including the repair estimate and disclosure statement required to be given to customers, and I am empowered to execute this application on behalf of the above named [sic] entity or individual. Mr. Arthur’s name was printed below this statement along with his signature (which Mr. Arthur acknowledged during his testimony), his title as “owner,” his phone number, and the date: March 10, 2019. At all times relevant to this case, MS&R held a valid motor vehicle repair shop license. Sometime in 2019, Victor Oddo bought a 2002 Jeep Liberty (Jeep) from M and K Auto. Mr. Oddo secured his vehicle license plate, numbered FL- NBMD06, on the Jeep. Shortly after the purchase, the Jeep was not running smoothly. Mr. Oddo contacted M and K Auto, explained the problem, and he was directed to Respondent. Testimony at hearing did not adequately address the extent of the problem, other than the check engine light was coming on. During another appointment, Mr. Oddo paid Respondent $100 for a valve gasket repair. When shown a copy of the MS&R invoice for the valve gasket repair, Mr. Arthur confirmed it was an MS&R invoice but, testified he had “never seen that invoice, no. I don’t know anything about a valve gasket repair.” In January 2020, the Jeep’s check engine light kept coming on. Mr. Oddo brought the Jeep to Respondent. Mr. Arthur sent Mr. Oddo to a different repair shop, Carl and Sons Repair Shop (C&S). Based on information provided, Mr. Oddo believed the repair would cost $1,000 if done by C&S. On Wednesday, January 15, 2020, Mr. Oddo returned his Jeep to MS&R after Mr. Arthur stated he could do the repair for $380. The Jeep remained in Respondent’s possession until February 6, 2020, a period of 22 days. Mr. Oddo communicated with Mr. Arthur via telephone and text messages. Over the course of the 22 days the Jeep was at MS&R, Mr. Oddo sought information about the status of the Jeep’s repairs and when it would be returned to him. Respondent did not provide Mr. Oddo a written estimate for any work to be completed on the Jeep. At no time did Mr. Oddo waive the preparation of a written estimate. Mr. Arthur repeatedly claimed that the repair would be paid for by M and K Auto, as “the repairs were not done for the - - Mr. Oddo, they were done for the lot.” Mr. Oddo did not authorize Respondent or any of its employees to use his Jeep for personal use. Between January 15, 2020, and February 6, 2020, Mr. Oddo never took physical possession of his Jeep. On Thursday, January 23, 2020, at approximately 1:10 p.m., Mr. Oddo took two photographs of his Jeep parked in front of a Speedway store. The Jeep’s license plate confirmed it was Mr. Oddo’s vehicle. (Pet. Ex.9, pp 31 & 32.) This Speedway store is a block or more away from MS&R. On February 6, 2020, Mr. Oddo picked up the Jeep from MS&R. Respondent did not provide Mr. Oddo an invoice or billing statement for any work that was completed on the Jeep. After picking up the Jeep on February 6, 2020, Mr. Oddo received a parking ticket (Ticket One) in the mail. Ticket One was issued by the City of Tampa for a parking infraction at Ben T. Davis beach.5 The parking 5 A round-trip trek from MS&R’s location to Ben T. Davis beach could not be more than 40 miles. infraction occurred on Saturday, January 18, 2020, at approximately 1:00 a.m., while the Jeep was in Respondent’s possession. The Jeep’s license number on Ticket One confirmed it was Mr. Oddo’s vehicle. Mr. Oddo communicated with Mr. Arthur about Ticket One, and believed Mr. Arthur would pay the $46.00 fine. Later, Mr. Oddo received another parking ticket (Ticket Two) in the mail. Ticket Two was issued by the City of Clearwater for an expired parking meter at a Clearwater beach.6 The parking ticket was issued on January 18, 2020, at 5:11 p.m., while the Jeep was in Respondent’s possession. The Jeep’s license number on Ticket Two confirmed it was Mr. Oddo’s vehicle. Mr. Oddo did not communicate with Mr. Arthur about Ticket Two as by that time, Mr. Oddo had filed a complaint with Petitioner. Petitioner’s Exhibit 9, pages 27 through 29, purports to show sand on the back seat of Mr. Oddo’s Jeep. While it is logical to assume that a vehicle may have sand in it after a trip (or two) to the beach, or for that matter while in Florida as a whole, the black and white photographs are not clear or concise, but are unnecessary. That the Jeep was at each beach is established by the two tickets. After receiving the second ticket, Mr. Oddo checked his Florida Sunpass transponder7 account and discovered two charges while the Jeep was at MS&R for repair. On Thursday, January 23, 2020, at approximately 11 a.m., Mr. Oddo’s transponder account was charged $1.07 for his Jeep traveling southbound on the Bob Graham Sunshine Skyway bridge (Skyway). Later, at 12:25 p.m., Mr. Oddo’s transponder account was again charged $1.07 for the Jeep returning northbound on the Skyway. Mr. Arthur testified that Mr. Oddo’s Jeep was taken for a round-trip test drive to Sarasota, Florida, on January 23, 2020. The round-trip test drive 6 A round-trip trek from MS&R’s location to a Clearwater beach could not be more than 40 miles. 7 Mr. Oddo referred to this as his “Sunshine Skyway pass.” was approximately 82 miles in distance. Mr. Arthur attached a scanner to the Jeep to determine “what the repair needed to be done.” The test drive was also to pick up “a check for a different repair for a car dealer.” Respondent described this test drive using the phrase it “killed two birds with one stone.” Approximately 45 minutes after the Jeep returned from the Sarasota test drive, the Jeep was photographed at the Speedway store front. Mr. Arthur claimed the Jeep was on empty and had to be filled with gas. As provided in paragraph 11 above, Petitioner’s Exhibit 9, pages 31 and 32, are pictures of the Jeep parked in front of the Speedway store, not at a gas pump. Prior to reclaiming his car, Mr. Oddo was led to believe from Mr. Arthur that the Jeep’s timing chain and the check engine light had been repaired. However, that was not the case. Although the timing chain may have been repaired or replaced, the check engine light stayed on. When Mr. Oddo reclaimed his Jeep on February 6, 2020, he claimed there were “approximately a thousand miles added to my odometer.” He failed to substantiate this claim with evidence of the odometer reading on the Jeep when he dropped it at MS&R, compared to the odometer reading when he reclaimed the Jeep. Further, Mr. Oddo confused the issue when he testified: My trip odometer only had 16 miles on it, and I always reset my trip odometer when I fill up my gas tank. My gas tank was empty with 16 miles, so I - - I don’t understand why the trip odometer has to be reset for a test drive at all. Mr. Arthur admitted he never filled out or provided an estimate or invoice for the repair work to Mr. Oddo’s Jeep. Mr. Arthur testified instead that he was under the impression the repair work would be paid for by the car dealer from whom Mr. Oddo bought the Jeep. Mr. Arthur testified: We have an open contract, we are - - no shop under any of the motor vehicle repair under Mr. Williamson,[8] or anybody else, requires the car dealer to come out here and sign the invoice on every job. * * * And no shop that does car dealer wholesale work, auto work, auction work, has the customer - - the car dealer come down out of his office and sign a repair order; it’s a blanket contract, verbal contract. We repair them, they pay their bills, and everybody’s happy. * * * Just in rebuttal, there’s not one car dealership, one repair shop in the world that gets the car dealer or the auction to sign an invoice on every single job. It’s not possible. They’re not going to come down out of their car lot to come down here and sign every - - it’s a blanket contract, verbal contract valid under the State of Florida. Petitioner did not present any disciplinary history regarding Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order that: Finds Respondent guilty of violating section 559.920(3), (12), (13), and (17), as alleged in the AC; Imposes an administrative fine of $4,000; and Directs Respondent to cease using consumers’ vehicles for unauthorized business. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 2021. Robert J. Arthur Robert J. Arthur, d/b/a Mustang Speed & Restoration 12545 44th Street North, Suite D Clearwater, Florida 33762 Steven Hall, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Genevieve Hall, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Nicole “Nikki” Fried Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner has standing to protest the establishment of an additional autocycle dealership; and, if so, whether Petitioner is adequately representing this line of vehicles in the relevant territory or community pursuant to section 320.642, Florida Statutes (2019).1/
Findings Of Fact iMotorsports is located in Pinellas County. No evidence was provided regarding its address or location. The parties stipulated, however, that iMotorsports is located 45.9 miles from Gables Motorsports, and is outside of a 12.5 mile radius of the proposed dealership, Gables Motorsports. Gables Motorsports is located in Pasco County, Florida at 28009 Wesley Chapel Boulevard, Wesley Chapel, Florida 33543. According to the U.S. Census Bureau and University of Florida, Bureau of Economic Research, the population of Pasco County, Florida, was 464,697 as of April 1, 2010. The estimated population as of April 1, 2018, for this same area was 515,077. Vanderhall manufactures "autocycles" or two-passenger, three-wheeled motor vehicles and sells them nationally. At the time of the hearing there were eight to ten dealerships distributing the Vanderhall autocycles in Florida, and there were 55 Vanderhall dealerships or distributors nationwide. In these proceedings, Vanderhall seeks to allow Gables Motorsports to serve as a dealership to sell and service the Vanderhall autocycles. Although no franchise agreement was offered into evidence, based on Mr. Saba's testimony, the undersigned finds in June or July 2018, iMotorsports entered into an agreement with Vanderhall to sell its autocycles. According to the documentation offered by Vanderhall, iMotorsports has sold 15 Vanderhall autocycles since it became a Vanderhall dealership, approximately 14 months ago. None of those sales were to households within a 12.5 mile radius of the proposed dealership at Gables Motorsports. Mr. Saba agreed iMotorsports had not had any sales to households in the 12.5 mile radius around Gables Motorsports, but argued at the hearing that verbal promises were made by Vanderhall that it would not establish any other Vanderhall dealerships in Florida. Ultimate Findings Regarding Standing iMotorsports is an existing dealership that sells Vanderhall autocycles. iMotorsports is not within a 12.5 mile radius of the proposed dealership at Gables Motorsports. iMotorsports has failed to establish that during the 12-month period preceding the filing of the application for the proposed dealership by Gables Motorsports and Vanderhall, iMotorsports or its predecessor made 25 percent of its retail sales of the Vanderhall autocycles to registered household addresses within a 12.5 mile radius of Gables Motorsports. Therefore, iMotorsports does not have standing to bring this challenge pursuant to section 320.642(3).
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 Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles finding iMotorsports lacks standing, and dismissing iMotorsports' challenge of the Respondents' new dealership application for the sale of Vanderhall vehicles at Gables Motorsports. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 10th day of December, 2019.
