Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida, which, through its Division of Florida Highway Patrol, maintains a "zone rotation wrecker system" for the State of Florida. The "rotation list" is used to determine which wrecker service is called to remove wrecked, abandoned or stolen vehicles from public thoroughfares in connection with investigations or operations of the Florida Highway Patrol. The rotation list is made up of names of wrecker operators who have been placed on that list following an investigation into their background and inspection of equipment they employ in order to insure compliance with the Petitioner's rules, particularly related to the safe operation of the wrecker service equipment and the safe and appropriate handling of towed and stored vehicles. When a wrecker is called to respond to an accident or to the need for a motorist to have a vehicle towed, the Florida Highway Patrol calls the wrecker service at the top of the list to obtain wrecker services. This wrecker service is then rotated to the bottom of the rotation list in the context of which wrecker service will be called for succeeding wrecker service needs. The admission and retention of reputable wrecker service operators on the rotation list who can be trusted to care for the public's vehicles in an appropriate manner, both as to towing and storage, are primary concerns of the Petitioner. Respondent, Jarkow's Wrecker Service ("Jarkow") participates in the Florida Highway Patrol rotation wrecker system in Bay County, Florida. The Respondent's business establishment is located at 5715 Titus Road, Panama City, Florida. Stuart Jarkow and his wife live on the premises of the business. The Respondent had been on the Florida Highway Patrol rotation wrecker service list for approximately three years as of the time of hearing. On January 9, 1989, Trooper Vernon D. Welch, Florida Highway Patrol, investigated an accident on State Road 2301 in Bay County. The accident involved a 1986 Toyota pickup truck owned by Jerry Davis, who was driving it at the time. The accident occurred at approximately 2:15 a.m.., when Mr. Davis swerved to avoid a dog. The truck rolled over and came to rest on its top. Mr. Davis was uninjured, but the vehicle was not in a condition to be driven under its own power and required towing. Pursuant to a call by Trooper Welch from the rotation list, the Respondent and his wrecker responded to the scene of the accident. He towed the Davis truck to his storage lot in Bay County at his place of business where it remained until January 16, 1989. During the time it rested at Mr. Jarkow's storage lot and place of business, Mr. Davis, the owner, did not go to inspect the truck because he believed that Mr. Jarkow would charge him a $25.00 fee for such inspection. Mr. Davis had purchased the truck in 1988 and replaced two of the tires at the time of purchase. Later, on August 5, 1988, he bought two other tires. At the time of the accident, the truck was equipped with four 14-inch steel- belted radials and a Sears Diehard battery, which Mr. Davis had purchased three months after buying the truck. At the time of the accident, the tires and rims were all in very good condition. Mr. Davis also kept a spare 14-inch wheel in the bed of the truck. After the vehicle rolled over during the accident, the wheel was retrieved and returned to the vehicle and was in the vehicle when Mr. Jarkow towed it to his place of business. All four tires were inflated when the vehicle was towed to Jarkow's lot. Garry's Auto Salvage ("Garry's") is a firm which deals primarily in late-model vehicles for salvage. Pursuant to contracts with insurance companies, Garry's transports and stores damaged vehicles at its place of business, pending appraisal of the value of the vehicle or the damage cost by the insurance company responsible for the risk of an accident. At such time as insurance companies make financial settlements with the owners of the vehicles, Garry's typically purchases the damaged vehicle in order to sell the parts which can be salvaged. Pursuant to a contract with Superior Insurance Company, Carry's acquired Mr. Davis' truck on January 16, 1989. The vehicle was to remain at Garry's until the insurance company made final settlement with the owner. Greg Johnson, a car hauler for Garry's, was asked to pick up the 1986 Toyota truck from Jarkow's place of business. Upon arrival at Jarkow's, Mr. Johnson presented a "pickup order" to Stuart Jarkow, the Respondent. Mr. Jarkow did not immediately release the vehicle; but after approximately 30 minutes, during which undisclosed negotiations apparently occurred, Mr. Jarkow agreed to release it to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson completed an inventory report describing the condition of the vehicle. He described the rims as "good" because they were not bent or otherwise damaged. Due to the poor condition of the tire tread which he observed on the tires, he described them as being in poor condition. Mr. Jarkow refused to sign the inventory report initially but later signed it after writing "no" in spaces reserved for "spare (tire) spoilers, and shades." He also wrote "tire only in bed" on the inventory form. Mr. Johnson paid Jarkow for the towing and storage charges, put the Toyota truck onto his transporter truck and went straight to Garry's. He unloaded the truck at Garry's in an area in the storage lot designated for cars on which insurance settlements had not yet been completed. Mr. Johnson did not remove anything from the vehicle after he had picked it up from Jarkow. The Toyota was in the same condition when it arrived at Garry's as it was when Mr. Johnson picked it up from Jarkow. Russ Breeland, Manager of Garry's, met Mr. Johnson when the Toyota was brought in to that place of business. Mr. Breeland looked at the vehicle to make sure that nothing was missing. He immediately noticed that the tires and wheels were not original. He observed only one Toyota wheel on the vehicle. The right-side tires were deflated, and the tires had very poor tread condition. The battery did not match as being original to the vehicle. In particular, due `to the battery's weathered condition, it appeared to have been sitting out in the weather for a substantial period of time and later installed in the wrecked truck. The original battery posts were in a weathered state indicating that they had not been recently connected to any battery terminals. A short time after the vehicle was brought to Garry's, the owner, Jerry Davis, arrived there to inspect the truck. He met with Donald Lizotte, an employee of Garry's. Mr. Lizotte and Mr. Davis inspected the vehicle, and Mr. Davis became upset when he discovered that the wheels and the battery appeared to have been replaced with unrelated, inferior parts. Mr. Lizotte wrote down the serial numbers and makes of the tires on the back of the inventory report, a description of the rims, and the make of the battery. The tires on the truck were a mix of recapped radial tires and bias-ply tires. Such a mix of radial and non-radial tires is very atypical and not normally done because a match of such tires on a vehicle can cause the vehicle to sway and to track with the ruts of a road, creating erratic steering and a road hazard. The Sears Diehard battery, which had been purchased by Mr. Davis and installed in his truck before the accident, was not in the truck. The battery found in the truck was a Delco battery. The 14-inch wheel, which had been kept in the bed of the truck by Mr. Davis, was missing. Rather, a 15-inch spare tire was found in the truck, without a wheel. Upon leaving Garry's, Mr. Davis called the Florida Highway Patrol on January 16, 1989. He made a verbal complaint to Lt. Charles Helms against the Respondent. Mr. Davis had seen photographs of the truck taken by Mr. Lizotte when the truck arrived at Garry's and concluded that Jarkow had swapped the parts or that someone, while it was in Jarkow's custody, had swapped the parts on the vehicle. Lt. Helms informed Mr. Davis that he should file a written complaint with the Florida Highway Patrol. On January 26, 1989, Lt. Helms, accompanied by Trooper Welch, went to Garry's to look at the truck. He obtained Mr. Lizotte's photographs and took additional photographs of the vehicle. Trooper Welch observed from the appearance of the lug nuts and the rims that the wheel rims had recently been changed. Mr. Davis delayed filing a written complaint with the Florida Highway Patrol until April 4, 1989. Lt. Helms initiated a criminal investigation to determine if the truck parts had been stolen and submitted the results to the State Attorney's office on July 18, 1989. Lt. Helms later learned that no criminal charges would be filed by the State Attorney's office. He pursued an administrative investigation against the Respondent, in any event. During his investigation, Lt. Helms was advised by Mr. Breeland of a prior incident involving the removal of wheels and tires from a vehicle which had been towed by and stored at Jarkow. Lt. Helms investigated that incident which involved the replacement of wheels and tires from a 1986 Mustang owned by Leo Shealy. That incident occurred in July of 1988. The Mustang was owned by Mr. Shealy but driven by his son. The vehicle was involved in an accident on July 20, 1988 in Panama City. The accident was investigated by Officer Mitchell Pitts of the Panama City Police Department. The Mustang was equipped with expensive aluminum wheels and radial tires at the time of the accident. Mr. Shealy's son had spent approximately $1,000.00 on the new wheels and tires one week prior to the accident. The Respondent was called to tow the Mustang to his place of business. Prior to removal of the vehicle from the accident scene, Officer Pitts observed that the wheels and tires were in good condition and that the rims were a "mag type" wheel and, in other words, were the wheels purchased by Mr. Shealy's son and installed on the vehicle prior to the accident. Mr. Shealy's son was driving the mustang when the accident occurred and was taken to the hospital. Following his release from the hospital, Mr. Shealy and his son went to Jarkow to check on the condition of the vehicle and retrieve some of their personal effects from the interior of the vehicle. On that visit, the tires and rims were unchanged. Mr. Shealy inquired about the stereo equipment in the vehicle, and Mr. Jarkow told him that the vehicle would be kept locked up where no one could tamper with it. He assured Mr. Shealy that there would be no problem about anything being removed from the vehicle. Mr. Shealy received a call from an insurance adjuster, Ronald LaMaster, several days later. Mr. LaMaster requested that he sign a release form at Jarkow so that the Mustang could be picked up by Garry's and taken to Garry's for adjustment and settlement. Mr. Shealy met with Mrs. Jarkow at 8:00 a.m. on that Saturday morning and signed a release form. While he was at Jarkow, Mr. Shealy told Mrs. Jarkow that he hoped that the vehicle could be "totaled", that is, that the full appraisal value would be paid for the vehicle, instead of repairing the damage, because he did not want to endure a lengthy period of time while repairs were being effected. Mrs. Jarkow replied that if Mr. Shealy desired it, the vehicle could be totaled, that is, that Jarkow could take steps to insure that the vehicle in its damaged condition would not have sufficient value over the cost of the necessary repairs, so that the insurance company would declare it a total loss and pay the appraised value for the vehicle to Mr. Shealy. Mr. Shealy assumed, from her comments, that Mrs. Jarkow was assuring him that the Respondent could render the appearance of the Mustang such that it would be appraised as not worthy of repair. Following his conversation with Mrs. Jarkow, Mr. Shealy did not feel secure about the arrangements made about his vehicle. He drove back to Jarkow at 11:00 a.m. that same morning. He did not immediately recognize the Mustang at the storage lot at Jarkow, although it was sitting in the same place as he last saw it. The wheels and tires had already been replaced since he had spoken with Mrs. Jarkow that morning with inferior black-painted wheels and old rotten tires. Mr. Shealy then called Mr. LaMaster and told him to advise Garry's not to pick up the Mustang as arranged. Mr. Shealy later called Jarkow. A dispatch service answered the telephone, and Mr. and Mrs. Jarkow did not respond to the telephone call. Mr. Shealy told that dispatch service to have Mr. Jarkow return his call. When his call was not returned, Mr. Shealy called again some time later that same day and spoke with the dispatch service once again. Mr. Shealy was told then that Mr. Jarkow intended to call him but that he must have been busy. Mr. Shealy then told the dispatch service to relay a message to Mr. Jarkow to the effect that he could either put the original equipment back on the Mustang or answer for failure to do so to the Bay County Sheriff's Department. Mr. Shealy told the dispatch service that he would return at 2:00 p.m. to inspect the vehicle. Mr. Shealy returned to Jarkow at 2:00 p.m. that same day. He knocked on the door and no one responded. He observed the vehicle, however, and saw that his son's wheels and tires had been installed on the vehicle once again. He took photographs of it and then called Mr. LaMaster requesting that the Mustang be taken from Jarkow as soon as possible. Mr. Shealy never made a report to the sheriff's department, however. He merely stated that he, in effect, did not wish to encounter any further problems in dealing with-the vehicle and the accident. Based upon these incidents with the Toyota truck and the Mustang, Lt. Helms concluded, in his opinion, that the Respondent had engaged in a pattern of conduct demonstrating a lack of reputability as a wrecker service. Lt. Helms presented his findings to Major Jimmy C. Wright, the Troop Commander. Major Wright reviewed the investigation and recommended removal of the Respondent from the rotation list because equipment had been removed from the vehicles while they were in the Respondent's custody. Major Wright concluded in recommending this agency initial action that the incidents involving the two vehicles, in his opinion, demonstrated a lack of reputability within the meaning of Rule 15B-9.007(7), Florida Administrative Code. He felt that the Florida Highway Patrol could no longer rely on the Respondent to perform a caretaking function in an appropriate manner with vehicles entrusted to its custody for towing and storage. Major Wright interpreted Rule 15B-9.007(7), Florida Administrative Code, to mean that the Respondent was responsible for acts of third persons under his control or for their acts with regard to vehicles which were under his control. He concluded that the rule at issue concerned the responsibilities of the wrecker service business and did not merely relate to a singular individual who owned or operated the business regardless of what sort of business entity under which it operates. Thus, Major Wright concluded, under the above-cited rule as he construed it, that Jarkow was responsible for the acts occurring at his business location. Accordingly, based upon his 30 years' experience with the Florida Highway Patrol and working with the standard wrecker rotation system set up by the statute and rule cited herein, both as a trooper arid in a supervisory capacity, and in consideration of his interpretation of Rule 15B- 9.007(7), Florida Administrative Code, to which he testified, Major Wright recommended that the Respondent be removed from the wrecker service rotation list for a lack of reputability, pursuant to Rule 15B-9.007(7), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Jarkow's Wrecker Service, be removed as a rotation wrecker operator for Bay County, for Troop A of the Florida Highway Patrol.. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 31st day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED QRDER IN CASE NQ. 90-0072 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted. 2-37. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fat 1-9. Accepted. 10-26. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, to the extent that it depicts what Major Wright's opinion was, rather than as a bin&[ing conclusion of law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not dispositive of aniy disputed material issues. Accepted, but not dispositive in itself of any material issues. The maintenance of appropriate insurance coverage does not obviate the requirement for demonstrated reputability. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard R. Mellon Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, Esq. General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0500 R.W. Evans, Esq. I. Ed Pantaleon, Esq. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Suite A-432 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0500 Brian D. Hess, Esq. 9108 West Highway 98 Panama City Beach, FL 32408 =================================================================
The Issue Are the allegations of the Administrative Complaint true, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the enforcement of the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act. Respondent 98 Trans Service Inc. was, at pertinent times, a corporation doing business as AAL Transmission World. Respondent Michael Crisante, Sr. is the president and owner of 98 Trans Service, Inc. d/b/a AAL Transmission World. Respondent 98 Trans Service, Inc. d/b/a AAL Transmission World (AAL) is located at 5526 North Highway 98, Lakeland, Florida. AAL is registered with the Department as a motor vehicle repair shop that does transmission repair and has been assigned registration number MV-17033 by the Department. AAL advertised to the public a $14.95 coupon special for a multi-point transmission tune-up which included new fluid, clean pan, clean screen, replace gasket, adjust band and linkage, road test, check for leaks and check u-joints. Several witnesses testified that the reason they brought their vehicles to AAL was because they had seen the advertisement for the $14.95 special. On or about May 4, 1993, Lee Baker took his 1982 American Eagle Sport station wagon 4 wheel drive to AAL to be serviced using the $14.95 coupon. Baker was not experiencing any problem with the transmission but was concerned about a particular noise he was hearing while driving the vehicle. Baker left the vehicle with an AAL employee with instructions to service the vehicle using the $14.95 coupon and that if there was any problem to call him. Late the next day someone from AAL called Baker to advise him that there was a problem with the transmission. The next morning Baker went to AAL and was shown some debris (steel shavings, etc.) that supposedly came from his transmission and was told that the transmission needed an overhaul. Baker was not given a repair estimate or disclosure statement form at this time. Baker did not give AAL a written waiver of his right to receive a written estimate. 10 Baker went home, and after discussing the matter with his wife went back to AAL to pick up the vehicle, but was told by AAL that the vehicle was unsafe to drive. After some discussion, AAL told Baker it would cost $300 to overhaul the transmission, and that the transmission would be in first class condition after overhaul. With this assurance from AAL, Baker authorized AAL to overhaul the transmission. Again, Baker was not given a written repair estimate or disclosure statement by AAL. Two days later AAL called Baker and advised him that the torque converter needed an overhaul. After some discussion with AAL about why the torque converter needed an overhaul, Baker, still somewhat confused, told AAL that he would not authorize the torque converter overhaul but to call him when the car was ready. Again, Baker was not given a written repair estimate or disclosure statement by AAL and had no idea what AAL was going to charge for the repair. When Baker went to pick up his vehicle he was presented with a bill by AAL for $697.48 which indicated, along with some minor repairs, that AAL had install a reconditioned automatic transmission, a rebuilt torque converter and replaced the right front axle. The bill, which Baker paid, came to $697.48. Other than this summary repair bill, Baker did not receive a repair estimate or disclosure statement in writing from AAL before AAL proceeded to repair his vehicle. Likewise, Baker has never received from AAL an itemized description of all labor, parts, and merchandise supplied and the costs for such items. On or about September 6, 1994, Peggy Graham took her 1986 Buick to AAL to have the transmission serviced with the $14.95 coupon. Graham had the Buick serviced on a regular basis and the oil changed every 3,000 miles. Prior to taking the Buick to AAL on September 6, 1994 to have the transmission serviced, Graham was not having any trouble with the car or the car's transmission. In fact, Graham had just recently driven the car 4,000 miles while on vacation. John Waterman, Service Manager for AAL, had the transmission pan pulled outside the presence of Graham. Thereafter, Graham was shown some alleged metal shavings that supposedly was in the pan of the transmission when it was pulled, and was told that the car was unsafe to drive. Graham signed a repair estimate and disclosure statement form to the effect that AAL was to give her a repair estimate in writing if the repair costs exceeded $50. Although Graham's final bill on repairing the transmission in the Buick was $901, she was never given a repair estimate even though the amount exceeded the $50 she had authorized. Likewise, Graham was never given an itemized description of all labor, parts, and merchandise supplied and the costs for such items. On February 18, 1994, Evelyn Smith took her 1987 Oldsmobile to AAL to have the fluid changed using the $14.95 coupon. Smith purchased the car in August, 1993, and had experienced no problems with the car or the transmission prior to taking the car to AAL. In fact, the information filled in by Smith on the disclosure statement (Department's exhibit no. 11) on February 18, 1994, indicates that she brought the car in for service and was experiencing no problems with the transmission. Also, the car had been serviced about a month earlier, and there was no indication of any problem with the transmission at that time. Dean Curtis, Service Manager for AAL, test drove the Smith vehicle and advised Smith that there was a problem when shifting from first gear to second gear. Smith had never experienced this problem before with the car's transmission. Curtis then had the transmission pan pulled outside the presence of Smith. Thereafter, Smith was shown some alleged metal shavings that supposedly was in the transmission pan at the time it was pulled, and was also told that the transmission fluid had a burnt smell. Based on her conversation with Curtis, Smith was under the impression that AAL could dismantle the transmission, determine the problem and repair the transmission for $262. With this understanding, Smith signed a repair estimate and disclosure statement form (Department's exhibit no. 11) indicating that she did not require a written estimate so long as the repair costs did not exceed $262, and left the car at AAL for the transmission to be repaired. Although this repair estimate and disclosure statement form (Department's exhibit no. 11) has what might be considered an estimate of labor and parts totalling $1,282.11 on the back, this information was not on the form at the time Smith signed on February 18, 1994. Later, AAL called Smith to advise her that it would cost $1,209.54 to repair the transmission and that if she did not want it repaired that there would be a charge of $262 for the diagnostic work and for reassembling the transmission. Although Smith had understood that the $262 would be the cost of repairs, she authorized AAL to repair the transmission at a cost of $1,209.54, because otherwise she would have wasted the $262. Subsequently, AAL repaired Smith's transmission at a cost of $1,264.69, which Smith paid. On October 13, 1993, Robert Weiss took his 1990 Jeep Cherokee Laredo to AAL to be serviced using the $14.95 coupon. Weiss's only reason for going to AAL was to have the Jeep's transmission serviced using the coupon. Prior to taking his Jeep to AAL for service, Weiss regularly serviced his Jeep and changed the engine oil every six thousand miles. Weiss had never experienced any problem with the Jeep's transmission prior to taking the Jeep to AAL and had never had to have the Jeep's transmission repaired. Weiss left the Jeep at AAL for the service set out in the coupon while he went shopping. Upon returning from shopping, Weiss was informed by an AAL employee that the Jeep's transmission pan contained metal shavings and that the fluid had a burnt smell. Weiss was shown the alleged metal shavings that supposedly were in the Jeep's transmission pan when the pan was removed. Weiss was not present when the transmission pan was removed from the Jeep's transmission. Weiss was informed by this AAL employee that the presence of metal shavings and the burnt smell of the fluid were signs of serious problems, and if not fixed could result in the transmission falling apart. Based upon these representations, Weiss agreed to have the transmission repaired. Weiss was advised verbally as to the cost of the transmission repair but did not sign a waiver of the requirement for a written repair estimate. Weiss did not receive a written repair estimate and did not sign any thing authorizing the repair of the transmission. Weiss did not receive an itemized description of all labor, parts, and merchandise supplied and the costs of such items from AAL. The only document received by Weiss from AAL was a copy of a repair estimate and disclosure form with Weiss' signature on the disclosure statement with no date and with none of choices checked. Weiss' signature does not appear on the authorization for inspection service section or the authorization for repair section. However, Weiss did sign the completion certification section. The final bill in the amount of $1,482.32 was paid by Weiss. On May 25, 1994, Mary Curry took her 1991 Buick Regal to AAL to have the fluid changed using the $14.95 coupon. Curry purchased the Buick in September, 1993. Curry had experienced no problems (no leaking, no slipping or no locking up) with the transmission prior to taking the car to AAL on May 25, 1994. The Buick's odometer showed a reading of approximately 35,000 miles. An employee of AAL took Curry's car back in the service area for service. Subsequently, Curry was shown a transmission pan with metal shavings and a bolt which supposedly was in the Buick's transmission pan when it was removed. Curry was not present when the transmission pan was removed by AAL. Curry was advised by AAL that it would cost $262 to remove, dismantle, inspect parts, reassemble and install transmission. Curry agreed to this and gave AAL written authorization to perform such work. Curry understood that she would be required to pay the $262 even if there was no repair required. After AAL dismantled the transmission, Curry was advised verbally that it would cost approximately $1,000 to repair the transmission. Curry did not waive the requirement for a written estimate. However, AAL did not give Curry a written estimate of the cost of the repairs. The costs ($1,398.95) set out on the back of Department's exhibit no. 15 were not there at the time Curry signed the front of that document authorizing AAL to dismantle, inspect and reassemble the transmission. Curry did not sign the authorization for repairs section on the front of the repair estimate and disclosure form. The final bill for the repair of the transmission was $1,336.45, which Curry paid. Sometime in June, 1995, Dennis Leonis took his 1968 Chevrolet Monte Carlo to AAL to have the transmission fluid changed. Leonis was the original owner of the car which had 200,000 miles on the odometer, but the car was in excellent working condition, with no transmission problems. AAL did not test drive the vehicle, but while the car was at AAL, and out of the presence of Leonis, the transmission pan was pulled. Subsequently, the manager advised Leonis that the pan contained debris (metal shavings) when it was pulled and that the transmission was falling apart. The manager quoted a price of $2,000 to repair the transmission. Dennis was told by the AAL employee that removed the pan that there was nothing wrong with the transmission. Leonis had the transmission pan, with the old fluid, placed back on the transmission and drove to another transmission repair shop to have the fluid changed. Leonis changed the transmission fluid every other week for a total of four times. Leonis drove the car for approximately 30,000 to 40,000 miles without any problems with the transmission. Heidi and Alvie Steelman had a 1983 Buick Regal that had developed a leak in the transmission. On November 23, 1994, the Steelmans took their Buick to AAL for the express purpose of having AAL determine the source of the leak. AAL found the source of the leak to be the O-ring where the dipstick enters the transmission but suggested that the Steelmans allow AAL to change the filter and fluid while in the shop at a cost of $14.00. The Steelmans agreed to have this service but did not agree to have AAL disassemble the transmission. Subsequently, and out of the presence of the Steelmans, AAL pulled the transmission pan on the Steelmans' Buick and showed them some alleged shavings that supposedly was in the transmission pan when it was pulled. AAL advised the Steelmans that the Buick needed a rebuilt transmission. The Steelmans advised AAL that they could not afford a rebuilt transmission and to reassemble the old transmission so they could take the car home. At this point, AAL advised the Steelmans that it would cost $185.00 to reassemble and if they didn't pay that the car would be moved to the AAL lot with the disassembled transmission. AAL advised the Steelmans that AAL could secure a loan for them to pay for the work. Alvie Steelman, assuming he was signing a request for a loan, signed a repair estimate authorization and disclosure statement that at the time of signing did not contain an estimate of the costs of repairs or costs of parts. After AAL's assurance to the Steelmans that a loan would be forthcoming, the Steelmans gave AAL permission to repair the transmission. AAL was unable to secure a loan for the Steelmans. The final bill was $583 which the Steelmans paid with funds borrowed from friends and family. AAL provided the Steelmans with a repair estimate and disclosure form at the time they paid for the repairs. However, this form did not itemize the costs for labor and parts. AAL did not provide the Steelmans with a itemized description of all labor, parts, and merchandise supplied and the costs of such items. AAL did not provide the Steelmans with any paper work until they had paid for the repairs. On June 9, 1995, Clyde Garretson drove his 1983 Chevrolet Truck to AAL. The truck could not be driven in drive gear but could be driven in second gear. Garretson left the truck with AAL with verbal instructions to check out the problem. AAL did not advise Garretson at this time as to the cost for diagnosing the problem and did not present Garretson with a repair estimate and disclosure form to be signed showing the estimated cost of diagnostic work. 41 Later on that day Garretson was advised by AAL, through his wife, that it would cost approximately $950 to fix the transmission. At first, Garretson decided not to have AAL fix the transmission, but when informed by AAL, through his wife, that there would be charge of $295 for diagnostic work, Garretson agreed, through his wife, to have the transmission repaired. Again, AAL did not prepare and present to Garretson a repair estimate for his approval. Furthermore, Garretson did not waive the require for a written repair estimate. The only paper work received by Garretson was the final bill for $1,046.22 which was not an itemized description of all labor, parts, and merchandise supplied and the costs for such items. On June 23, 1995, Daryl Gargus had his 1988 Dodge Ram D50 taken to AAL because the transmission was locked in gear. Gargus did not at any time receive an invoice with an itemized description of all labor, parts, and merchandise supplied and the costs for such items. Furthermore, it was later discovered by Gargus that a new clutch assembly and clutch disc that had been installed in the truck by Gargus had been removed and replaced by used parts. Gargus was told by AAL that the clutch had not been replaced. Also, a practically new direct drive starter that Gargus had observed prior to taking the truck to AAL had been removed and replaced by a used starter. Gargus was not told by AAL that the starter had been replaced. Edgar Pickett, Jr. and his son, Edgar Pickett, III, took the son's 1984 Fleetwood Cadillac to AAL for service and because it was slipping. The Picketts left the car with AAL. Edgar Pickett Jr. testified that he signed a repair estimate with a disclosure form on July 3, 1995, which required AAL to provide an estimate of repairs should the estimate of repairs exceeded $50. However, it appears that the repair estimate and disclosure form was signed by Edgar Pickett, Jr. on July 5, 1995, the date the car was picked up by Edgar Pickett, Jr. after being repaired by AAL. Furthermore, it appears that Edgar Pickett, III signed a repair estimate and disclosure form on June 30, 1995, authorizing diagnostic work and repair work on the transmission. Also, this form (Respondent's exhibit 1) shows an itemized statement of parts, labor and the costs of such items necessary for the repair of the transmission. Troy Spruill took his Dodge Dynasty to AAL for a $14.95 service. AAL test drove Spruill's car and told Spruill that the transmission was slipping from first to second, and that it might have to be rebuilt. Spruill left the car at AAL and went home. Later, AAL called Spruill and gave him a verbal estimate over the telephone of $1,122.83 to repair the transmission. The estimate included a CV joint. Subsequently, Spruill gave AAL authorization to make the repairs covered in the estimate which included the transmission and the CV joint. In fact, on July 19, 1995 Spruill signed a estimate of repairs and disclosure form authorizing the repair so long as the cost did not exceed $1,190.20 which was the cost of the repairs plus tax. Spruill paid AAL $1,190.20 and received a copy of the repair estimate and disclosure form. This form does not show an itemized description of all labor, parts and merchandise supplied and the costs of such items. However, Spruill was verbally furnished this information over the telephone prior to authorizing the repair on July 19, 1995.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, Recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order revoking the registration (MV-17033) issued to Respondents' motor vehicle repair shop. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-66847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level - 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level - 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Lawrence J. Davis, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 John L. Woodard, III, Esquire 320 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite A-6 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Tony Meehan's Auto Repair, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing business as Burnie's Auto Service. Essentially, it is the family business of a man and woman who are husband and wife, Anthony and Cheryl Meehan. Before moving to Florida to begin doing business as Burnie's Auto Service, the Meehans lived in New Jersey. In New Jersey, Anthony Meehan worked as an auto mechanic for approximately 15 years. He is an ASE-certified master mechanic and also holds several other auto mechanic and repair competency certifications. Prior to leaving New Jersey, he was half owner of a small auto repair business. He and his partner did all of the work in the two-bay shop. Over the years, he built up a $15,000 equity in the business. In addition, he had an auto repair manual worth about $30, which he planned to contribute to the new business, and he had his own personal tool box worth about $10,000 to $15,000, which he planned to use in connection with the operation of the business. Cheryl Meehan was not in the auto repair business in New Jersey. She worked for several different employers in an office administrator capacity. In her most responsible position, she essentially reported to a business executive daily and received daily assignments. During her employment, the company grew. Cheryl was exposed to, and gained valuable experience, in several areas of bookkeeping, accounting, banking, finance and personnel matters. Burnie's Auto Service was a relatively large ongoing auto repair business in Tampa, Florida. It had five employees and 14 work bays. In approximately September, 1989, the Meehans negotiated to buy the business for $275,000, $50,000 down and the balance amortized over a period of years at ten percent interest. The seller took back a purchase money mortgage on the business property to secure payment of the balance. Both of the Meehans are liable, jointly and severally, on the note and mortgage to the seller. The Meehans used the $15,000 Tony got for the sale of his interest in his New Jersey auto repair business as part of the down payment. In addition, they used a certificate of deposit in the amount of approximately $30,000. The CD had been obtained by use of funds that had been paid to Cheryl before their marriage as a result of a personal injury lawsuit. It is not clear whether the CD was held solely in Cheryl's name or in the names of both of the Meehans. In addition, $10,000 from the sale of Cheryl's automobile also went towards the purchase of the business. It was not clear from the evidence whether the automobile was titled in the name of Cheryl only, or in the name of both of the Meehans. Nor is it clear whether the automobile was purchased by Cheryl before the marriage. The purchase of the business was to close in November, 1989, but the closing was postponed to January, 1990. The Meehans incorporated Tony Meehan's Auto Repair, Inc., as a Florida corporation on or about December 20, 1989. The Meehans were named as the sole members of the initial board of directors of the corporation. The Meehans moved to Tampa on Christmas day, 1989. The initial meeting of the board of directors of Tony Meehan's Auto Repair, Inc., was held on December 28, 1989. At the meeting, the Meehans were confirmed as the sole members of the board of directors. Tony was named chairman of the board, and Cheryl was named secretary. 500 shares of stock were issued, all to "Anthony R. Meehan and Cheryl A. Meehan, husband and wife." In addition, Tony was made president of the corporation, and Cheryl was made secretary/treasurer. When the Meehans took over the business, they decided to keep the shop foreman, master mechanic and two auto mechanics already employed there. They decided to use suppliers Tony had used when he was in business in New Jersey. They decided to contract out towing and transmission service to companies in Land O' Lakes, Florida. These were joint decisions based in large part on Tony's expertise. Cheryl has practically no training or experience in auto mechanics or auto repairs. She has no auto mechanic certifications. She has only recently begun to learn something about auto mechanics and about how to do certain auto repairs. Hiring and firing continued to be joint decisions made by the two of them. To the extent that they were made based on an evaluation of the employee's skills in auto mechanics, they were based in large part on Tony's expertise. Since the beginning of the business, they have had to fire one employee, and they have hired two. Tony's primary role in the daily operations of the business is to generally supervise the quality and efficiency of the auto repair work. He also sometimes diagnoses (or helps diagnose) mechanical problems, directs (or helps direct) the performance of repairs, and test drives vehicles after repairs are done. In connection with these functions, he sometimes orders (or directs the ordering of) parts. Sometimes, he will estimate repair costs. Cheryl is the office administrator for the business. In this role, she handles all bookkeeping, accounting, banking, payroll and personnel matter details. She often bills jobs and operates the business cash register. She physically places orders for parts, at the direction of Tony or the employees, and pays for them. She generally will not countermand a parts order but may ask her husband or, if he is not there, the master mechanic to verify an order if she questions it. She makes sure parts get billed. As she became more familiar with the auto repair business, she began to estimate some jobs by reference to standard estimates manuals and was able to say which parts would have to be ordered for some jobs. The corporation opened a business bank account with a local bank. Both Cheryl and Tony have signature authority on the account. Cheryl writes virtually all checks on the account and does all the banking. Tony only writes a check on the account on the rare occasions when Cheryl is not available when one has to be written. Initially, the Meehans decided that Tony would be paid approximately $700 a week and that Cheryl would be paid approximately $300 to $350 a week. Tony did not have as much Social Security credit as Cheryl from their work in New Jersey, and they wanted to try to equalize their credits. Otherwise, as a practical matter, the relative size of their salaries did not matter to the Meehans. Cheryl deposited both checks into their joint personal bank account for the use of both of them, as needed. The business pays for a $200,000 whole life insurance policy on the life of Cheryl, and one on the life of Tony. It is not clear from the evidence who are the beneficiaries under those policies. The business also pays for a $2 million major medical insurance policy for Cheryl, and one for Tony. As the business continued, Cheryl assumed increasing duties and responsibilities, and Tony assumed fewer. Cheryl worked harder, and Tony worked less. Also, Cheryl's mother persuaded Cheryl that she should have a greater share of the equity in the business to reflect her greater initial financial contribution. Tony agreed. In January, 1991, additional stock in the company was issued. 135 shares went to Cheryl and 65 went to Tony. No changes were made in the constitution of the board of directors or in the officers of the corporation at that time. Tony Meehan's Auto Repair, Inc., d/b/a Burnie's Auto Service, applied to the Department 3/ for certification as a minority business enterprise on or about May 13, 1992. By letter dated September 16, 1992, the Department denied the application. The denial was based, in part, on the Department's determinations (1) that Cheryl's compensation was not commensurate with her ownership interest in the business and (2) that minorities (i.e., Cheryl) did not make up more than 50 percent of the board of directors. In reaction to the denial letter, and to improve their company's chances of being certified as a minority business enterprise, the Meehans decided to alter their respective salaries. Starting no earlier than December, 1992, Cheryl has been paid $725 a week, and Tony has been paid $450 a week. As before, as a practical matter, except for the Social Security credit, the relative size of their salaries does not matter to the Meehans. Cheryl deposits both checks into their joint personal bank account for the use of both of them, as needed. Also in reaction to the denial letter, and to improve their company's chances of being certified as a minority business enterprise, the Meehans met as the board of directors on or about March 18, 1993, to change the constitution of the board of directors and to change the officers of the corporation. They made Cheryl the chairman and sole member of the board of directors, and the president of the corporation. They made Tony the vice-president, secretary, and treasurer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Management Services enter a final order denying the application of Tony Meehan's Auto Repair, Inc., d/b/a Burnie's Auto Service, for certification as a minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1993.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Stuart M. Lerner, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner's Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. Filed December 3, 2010 4:44 PM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this ,,,11L day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. r Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Divist Motor Vehicles .,,,, -- u -'" this day of December, 2010. N . DNlerl5cenMAdmlnlstralor NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district comt of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. CAF/vlg Copies furnished: Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 A. Edward Quinton III, Esquire Adams, Quinton & Paretti, P. A. Brickell Bayview Center 80 Southwest 8th Street, Suite 2150 Miami, Florida 33130 Stuart M. Lerner Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
The Issue The issue for determination at formal hearing was whether Rule 5J- 12.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Theron C. Phinney is the sole owner and operator of Mobile Auto Repair Shop, located in Lake Park, Palm Beach County, Florida. He is engaged in the repairing of motor vehicles and has been in the auto repair business for over 35 years. Mr. Phinney's auto repair business is mobile. All of his equipment and tools for repairing vehicles are located in his truck. Mr. Phinney repairs vehicles wherever they are located, i.e., he goes to where the vehicles are located. No repairs are performed at Mr. Phinney's residence. Mr. Phinney has no employees. Mr. Phinney has been issued an occupational license by Palm Beach County at a cost of $25.00. The license identifies his residence as the location for his business. Even though Mr. Phinney does not perform any vehicle repairs at his residence, the County required him to provide his residential address as the location of his business. The County renews his license yearly with the residential address. 1/ Repairs by mobile motor vehicle repair shops are performed wherever the vehicle needing repair is located. Equipment and tools used to perform the repairs are located in the vehicle owned by the mobile motor vehicle repair shop. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) is charged with administering the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act, Sections 559.901-559.9221, Florida Statutes. The Act requires motor vehicle repair shops to register with the Department and pay a fee and provides certain exemptions. Section 559.904, Florida Statutes. Section 559.904(9), Florida Statutes, provides: (9) No annual registration application or fee is required for an individual with no employees and no established place of business. Section 559.903(8), Florida Statutes, defines "place of business" and provides: (8) "Place of business" means a physical place where the business of motor vehicle repair is conducted. The Department's Rule 5J-12.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (2) "Established place of business" means that physical location noted on the occupational license issued to the motor vehicle repair shop pursuant to Chapter 205, Florida Statutes. If the county or municipality has adopted no local occupational license requirement pursuant to Chapter 205, Florida Statutes, the term means that physical location where motor vehicle repairs are performed, or records, equipment, or tools used for the conduct of the business of motor vehicle repair are housed or stored. The term includes any vehicle constituting a mobile repair shop. The Rule was adopted on January 18, 1995. Rule 5J-12.001(2) implements Section 559.904(9). The Rule also implements Section 559.903(5) and (7), Florida Statutes, which define "minor repair service" and "motor vehicle repair shop," respectively. There is no dispute that mobile motor vehicle repair shops are included in the definition of motor vehicle repair shops. The Department developed the challenged Rule over a period of several months. Numerous public meetings were conducted, particularly with the motor vehicle repair industry, throughout the State of Florida. From the public meetings conducted by the Department, it was evident, among other things, that there was no clear understanding of the meaning of the term "established place of business" in Section 559.904(9). Consequently, the Department was convinced that clarification of the term was needed. The Motor Vehicle Advisory Council (MVAC) reviewed and advised the Department on the challenged Rule and gave the Rule its (MVAC) approval. The MVAC is a statutorily created advisory council, composed of members from the motor vehicle repair industry. The challenged Rule includes all mobile motor vehicle repair shops within the class of businesses required to be registered with the Department pursuant to Chapter 559, Florida Statutes. The Department contends that this inclusion is necessary because, since the purpose of Chapter 559 is to regulate the auto repair business, the mobile motor vehicle repair shops are conducting the business sought to be regulated in that the mobile repair shops are licensed by county and municipal authorities and are performing significant repairs for compensation. There are approximately 560 mobile motor vehicle repair shops registered with the Department. Standing is not at issue in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a non-instructional employee of the School Board and has been employed by the School Board of Brevard County for approximately nine (9) years. Respondent is a small engine mechanic and is assigned to the Maintenance Division of the School Board. Respondent's duties are to repair and maintain lawnmowers, edgers and other equipment in the North and Central areas of the Brevard County School District. Respondent was assigned School Board Vehicle No. 271 for transportation during working hours. Vehicle No. 271 is a pickup truck with distinctive School Board markings and a county government license tag. No other person was assigned the use of Vehicle 271. Three (3) sets of keys were maintained for Respondent's vehicle. One set was assigned to Respondent, one set is kept by the Maintenance Division in a key locker and one set is kept by the School Board Vehicle Maintenance Shop on State Road 520 in Cocoa, Florida. On or about February 27, 1989, Leon Cowling, Assistant Superintendent for Facilities and Support Services received a telephone call from Assistant Superintendent, Jerry Copeland, concerning Vehicle 271. Mr. Copeland had been contacted by two civilian employees from Patrick Air Force Base who stated that on or about February 22, 1989, they had seen Vehicle No. 271 in the Cape Canaveral area being driven in an erratic manner by a person holding a pistol and a large amount of cash. Mr. Cowling telephoned the Maintenance Department and relayed this information to Johnny Romans, Maintenance Coordinator, who confirmed that Vehicle 271 was assigned to Respondent and was parked in the maintenance yard. Respondent was on sick leave that day and Cowling asked Romans to secure the truck. Romans checked Vehicle 271 and found it locked. He went to the key locker for the extra set of keys but found them missing. Romans then called the Vehicle Maintenance Shop for their set of keys but those keys were also missing. Romans decided to take the matter up with his supervisor, Henry Hartrich, the next day and left Hartrich a memo on the incident. On or about February 28, 1989, Henry Hartrich returned to work from a conference and read the memo. Hartrich looked in the locked vehicle and observed several key rings and keys hanging on knobs on the dash board and on the console. Hartrich asked the locksmith, Bob Dunkinson, to open the vehicle and bring him all keys found inside. Dunkinson unlocked the vehicle and delivered the keys to Hartrich. Hartrich then asked Dunkinson to identify the various keys found in the vehicle. Dunkinson identified the keys and determined that one ring contained keys to the truck, as well as, keys to Mr. Hartrich's office, Mr. Buckner's office, Bobby Young's office, the warehouse, and the big forklift in the maintenance yard. Respondent was not assigned any of these keys except the truck keys. On March 6, 1989, a meeting was scheduled by the Maintenance Division to discuss the reported sighting of Respondent with a handgun and money in the School Board vehicle. Present at the meeting were the two civilian employees from Patrick Air Force Base who reported the incident, Mr. Cowling, Mr. Hartrich, Mr. Romans, Mr. Buckner and Respondent. At the meeting, Respondent was identified by the Air Force employees as the person they observed in Vehicle 271. Respondent denied having a handgun or cash in the vehicle. The Air Force employees were dismissed from the meeting and Mr. Hartrich then confronted Respondent with the keys found in his School Board vehicle. At first Respondent denied the keys were his, but then admitted that they were. Mr. Cowling suspended Respondent for the remainder of March 6 and March 7 with pay. On March 8, 1989, Respondent was recommended for termination of employment for misconduct for having unauthorized keys in his possession and suspended without pay. The School Board's Maintenance Division is entrusted with millions of dollars of equipment, tools and other public property. Theft of School Board property from the Maintenance Division is a serious problem and access to the areas where the property is stored is strictly controlled. Keys to the equipment storage areas and offices in the Maintenance Division are assigned only to those employees who require access to these areas. Respondent was not assigned the keys to the offices in the Maintenance Division or the warehouse and forklift. He had no reason to have those keys in his truck. Respondent's possession of the unauthorized keys was a serious violation of School Board policy. There have been documents and property stolen from the Maintenance Division in the past several years. The area from which these items were taken were secured by lock and key. Keys to the offices of Mr. Buckner, Mr. Hartrich, and the warehouse were among those discovered in Respondent's vehicle. The unauthorized keys in question were in Respondent's locked vehicle. Respondent was not assigned these keys or authorized to have them in his possession. Respondent was the only person who drove Vehicle 271. There was no evidence presented that any other person had the opportunity or motive to place the keys in Respondent's truck. Respondent did not present any evidence that showed the existence of a conspiracy by his immediate supervisor, Ed Buckner, or others to place the keys in his truck or to cause his termination from employment. Neither the Respondent's testimony nor that of his witnesses showed bias against the Respondent nor motive on the part of any of his supervisors to conspire against him.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, it is recommended that Respondent's suspension, effective March 8, 1989, be upheld and that he be terminated from employment with the School Board of Brevard County. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Burton J. Green, Esquire Post Office Box 320087 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32932-0087 William C. Walker, Jr., Esquire 1260 S. Florida Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955 Harold T. Bistline, Esquire Building I, Suite 10 1970 Michigan Avenue Cocoa, Florida 32922 Abraham L. Collinsworth Superintendent School Board of Brevard County 1260 S. Florida Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955 Hon. Larry C. Williamson, Chair School Board of Brevard County 1260 S. Florida Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955
