The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Citra-Life, Inc., LLC, is indebted to Petitioner for the purchase of citrus fruit; and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact The final hearing was convened, as duly noticed, on November 30, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. Neither party appeared at the final hearing. No evidence was presented by either party. Prior to the final hearing, neither party filed any correspondence or motions with DOAH requesting a continuance of, or objecting to, the hearing date.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s complaint against Citra-Life. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 1st day of December, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Acting on an anonymous tip, Michael L. Thomas, a Wildlife Officer with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, examined property in the Turnbull-Hammock area of Volusia County at a location between Edgewater and Oakhill and immediately adjacent to U.S. Route 1. This is a rural area which is unfenced and entirely open to the public. The particular property in question is reached by a substantial shell road running at a right angle from U.S. 1 and deadending in a borrow pit. A canal also is at right angles to the unnamed shell road at its borrow-pit end. The borrow pit is owned by Doug Cole. A smaller dirt road or jeep trail branches off from the shell road and passes between some thick trees and underbrush. Beyond the trees and underbrush, the jeep trail curves off slightly to the left where a pole barn or construction shack owned by Tom Foster is located. Instead of curving left, one can proceed on foot several more yards on a cleared pathway until one reaches a growth of vines which crosses the pathway and forms a sort of barricade across it. If one goes through the vines, one sees several narrower, winding, overgrown footpaths meandering back through the overgrowth quite some distance. The area beyond the vines is completely overgrown with tall weeds and brush except for these footpaths. Officer Thomas followed the route aforedescribed and followed one of the overgrown footpaths where he discovered approximately twenty-eight marijuana plants growing in plastic tubs deep in the underbrush. The plants were 8-10 feet tall and needed water. Officer Thomas' observation of the plants convinced him that the person who had cultivated them would have to water them soon. On the ground eight or ten feet before he reached the growing marijuana, Officer Thomas observed a pink plastic watering can, a metal can, some potting materials, and an empty box of "Miracle Grow" plant food. Officer Thomas and Sergeant Hightower "staked out" the area during the afternoon of September 16, 1989. More than three hours into their "stake out," the officers observed Petitioner park his truck at the pole barn and meander through the underbrush in the direction of the marijuana. He occasionally stopped and looked around him as he did so. Once Petitioner was beyond the vines, the officers could not "eyeball" him any longer. They did not see him touch any marijuana. They heard the sound of water cans being moved, and when Petitioner reappeared through the underbrush, he was carrying two empty containers he had picked up from those originally observed by Officer Thomas eight to ten feet in front of the marijuana crop. The officers interpreted Petitioner's looking around to have been checking to be sure he had not been followed or seen and interpreted his selecting the particular containers as evidence that he knew where and how to water the marijuana. The Petitioner then walked toward the canal with the containers and hunkered down on its bank. When he did so, Officers Thomas and Hightower sprang from their hiding place and placed Petitioner under arrest. They never saw him draw or scoop up any water into the containers, and the most credible evidence is that he stayed on the high side of the bank and did not approach the edge of the water in the canal below. Petitioner is a cement worker by trade. He stores his equipment, including his form boards, in the pole barn. The owner of the pole barn, Tom Foster, does not charge Petitioner any rent for this use. Petitioner was familiar with the area as far inward as the pole barn. On the day in question, the area immediately surrounding the pole barn was strewn with debris evidencing that teenagers had used it as a "partying area." It also was littered with discarded furniture and old boards that Petitioner identified as belonging to Tom Foster. On September 3, 1989 Petitioner's girlfriend had given him a used shotgun for deer hunting. On the day in question, a weekend, Petitioner had chosen Tom Foster's property to "tryout" that shotgun and see what type of pattern it shot. Petitioner explained that he had walked past all the other debris at the pole barn without selecting any of it as a target because it probably belonged to Tom Foster, the man who let him store his equipment without fee, and Petitioner did not want to lose Tom Foster's goodwill. Petitioner testified that he looked around himself as he walked and selected the containers far away from the pole barn because they did not seem to be Tom Foster's, that he had not even seen the marijuana let along recognized what it was, and that he was carrying the containers back to his truck to fetch his gun when a burrowing animal in the bank of the canal/ditch caught his attention and he hunkered down to watch it. Based on DOR's photographic exhibits and Officer Thomas' testimony, it is found that the tubs in which the marijuana was growing were obscured by underbrush from the view of anyone standing at the location of the watering and potting materials, although the marijuana tops could be seen from that point if one were looking in that direction. Officer Thomas readily agreed that many untrained people cannot recognize marijuana growing in the field. The officers did not note whether any burrowing was going on in the canal bank, but their subsequent search of Petitioner's truck turned up the shotgun and some birdshot. Officer Thomas testified that a better "pattern" effect could be obtained by aiming the shotgun at a larger object than the water containers and that some of the birdshot found with the gun might be lost on the smaller objects. He therefore ascribed no credibility to Petitioner's choice of the watercans as targets. No drug paraphernalia or materials for cultivation were found on Petitioner's person or in his truck. Petitioner was charged, tried before a jury, and acquitted of the criminal charge "manufacture of cannabis." A final judgment was entered to that effect. In deference to DOR's concerns expressed at formal hearing, it is noted that the judicial outcome of the criminal charge is not res judicata nor "law of the case" in the instant administrative proceeding which embraces different issues and burdens of proof. It does, however, support Petitioner's assertions that he has never used drugs or been convicted in connection with them. The original September 1989 DOR assessment used as a component base an estimated 24.25 weight of the 28 marijuana plants. The "estimate" was made by Mr. Wattercutter, who prepared the original assessment. Mr. Wattercutter telephoned the Volusia County State Attorney's Office, copied the arrest warrant, and interviewed Officer Thomas. He accepted what was told him without DOR calculating a chain of custody, calibration of scales, or finding out what parts of the marijuana had been weighed, or the quality or gender of the marijuana. The original DOR assessment used as a component multiplier a value assigned by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement price list in effect at that time. That list assigned a value of $600 per pound of marijuana. Mr. Wattercutter also applied a fraud penalty in accord with DOR policy. The original assessment amounted to $16,368.75. On August 20, 1990, Mr. Wattercutter and others who did not testify weighed some marijuana in two boxes in the evidence room of the Sheriff's Office in DeLand, Florida. After subtracting the weight of the empty boxes, Mr. Wattercutter applied the FDLE price list figure of $600 per pound and reassessed Petitioner's tax liability (excluding the inapplicable fraud penalty) at $5,850. The chain of custody of the marijuana was not presented. No evidence of calibration of the scale used was presented. The predicate for the $600 per pound valuation made by FDLE was presented through the deposition of Sherry Gomez, which is not persuasive that the charted figure is probative of the value of the marijuana in this case.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order dismissing the assessment/amended assessment against Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 29th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1-10 Except as modified to exclude subordinate material, accepted. Respondent's PFOF: 1 Rejected as not probative. Undoubtedly, the fact that Ms. Gomez' deposition was taken by telephone contributed to its disjointed nature, but the predicate for the accuracy of the chart/graph was insufficient as set out in FOF 15. 2-4, 9 Accepted except for subordinate and cumulative material. Not adopted because the facts as found more accurately reflect the record as a whole. 5-8 Except for the last sentence, accepted except where subordinate or unnecessary. The last sentence of 8 is rejected as not supported by the more credible record evidence as a whole. 10 Subordinate as stated. Accepted that the plants were marijuana. Copies furnished to: Mark T. Aliff Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 David C. Robinson, Esquire Suite 6 1326 South Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 J. Thomas Herndon Executive Director Department of Revenue The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 William D. Moore General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact During January, February, and early March, 1982, Respondent entered into several oral contracts for the purchase of tomatoes from Petitioner. Specifically, orders were placed by Respondent on January 28, February 3 and 5, and March 3, 1982, for US. No.3 grade tomatoes to be shipped f.o.b. origin to receivers in Puerto Rico and Alabama. The first three orders were shipped by boat to Puerto Rico and the fourth by truck to Alabama. The shipment of January 28, 1982 (Shipment #1), consisted of 1,296 boxes, and the invoice cost was 9,288.90. Payment was due on or before February 17, 1982, per the handwritten note placed on the invoice by Ms. Ernst before it was mailed out. A similar notice as to payment due date was placed on each of the other invoices before they were mailed out. The shipment of February 3, 1982 (Shipment #2), consisted of 1,368 boxes; the invoice cost was $9,188.10; and "payment was due on or before February 22, 1982. The shipment of February 5, 1982 (Shipment #3), also consisted of 1,368 boxes; was priced at $9,188.10; and payment was due on or before February 24, 1982. The shipment to Alabama of March 3, 1982 (Shipment #4), consisted of 1,178 boxes; the invoice cost was $7,748.70; and payment was due on or before March 23, 1982. Shipment #1 was inspected by a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspector in the receiver's cool room in Puerto Rico on February 5, 1982, eight days after it was shipped. At that time, the inspector noted that the condition of the tomatoes was "approximately 40 percent green and breakers, 45 percent turning pink, 10 percent light red and red. Decay ranges from 2 to 6 percent, average 3 percent, Bacterial soft rot in early stages." The grade was noted: "Fails to grade US. No. 3, account of grade defects." Quality was noted as: "Mature fairly clean to clean, well developed, generally fairly smooth to slightly rough. Grade defects ranges 40 to 56 percent, average 47 percent, mostly scars, catfaces, cuts and rough texture." Shipment #2 was inspected by a USDA inspector in the receiver's cool room on February 16, 1982, 13 days after shipment. At that time, the inspector noted as to condition: "Average approximately 95 percent red. From 2 to 8 percent, average 4 percent decay; Bacterial soft rot and Gray Mold rot in various stages." Quality was listed as: . . . grade defects ranges 12 to 28 percent, average 19 percent, mostly growth [sic] crack, catfaces, cuts and scars. Grade was noted: "Fails to grade US. No. 3 account of grade defects." Shipment #3 was inspected by a USDA inspector in the receiver's cool room on February 17, 1982, 12 days after shipment. On the inspection report, condition was noted: "Average approximately 85 percent red. Decay ranges 5 to 24 percent, average 14 percent. Gray Mold rot and Bacterial soft rot in various stages." Quality was listed as: . . . From 12 to 32 percent, average 18 percent grade defects, mostly scars, catfaces, mechanical damage and rough texture." Grade was listed as: "Fails to grade US. No. 3 account of grade defects." Shipment #4 was inspected by a USDA inspector in the receiver's warehouse in Alabama on March 5, 1982, two days after shipment. Upon inspection, condition was noted as: "Strano's Pride lot: Average approximately 30 percent green, 5 percent breakers, 20 percent turning, 20 percent pink, 15 percent light red, 10 percent red." As to Select Lot: "Average approximately 20 percent green, 20 percent breakers, 15 percent turning, 20 percent pink, 10 percent light red, and 15 percent red." Each lot was average 1 percent decay. Grade was not quoted, nor was quality. Ordinary shipping time by ship from the Port of Miami to Puerto Rico is four to five days. Inspections under the USDA Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act rules must be conducted within 24 hours after delivery. The USDA inspector is generally accepted as the only nonpartisan means of determining grade, condition, and quality of produce. While the condition of a shipment may change during transit, the grade of the produce normally will not. When the delivery inspections on Shipments #1, #2, and #3 were conducted in Puerto Rico and the receivers complained to Respondent about the produce they received, Elliott, who had been in daily telephone contact with his dissatisfied customers and had verified the condition of the shipments in conversations with the inspectors in question, contacted Tom Banks, Sales Manager for Petitioner, who authorized adjustments in payment saying, "Work it out and get back what you can, or words to that effect. Discussion between these two men as to the adjustments included such topics as charges for gassing and freight to the gashouse, along with the fact that the tomatoes failed to grade out at destination as US. No. 3, as ordered. Mr. Banks failed to get the approval of Mr. Strano before authorizing those adjustments, however Respondent had ordered green tomatoes without gassing so that there would be less chance of spoilage during the several days it took in transit for the tomatoes to get from Miami to Puerto Rico. Gassing, a procedure designed to speed up the ripening of tomatoes, would not have been an appropriate process in a situation such as this. With regard to Shipment #4, Respondent wanted vine-ripened tomatoes for quick delivery to a close-by market. He described his order as for 40 to 50 percent color in the shipment. The tomatoes delivered contained color well below the desired level; and as a result, the Respondent's customer, who had to hold them for an extended period before sale to allow them time to ripen, was dissatisfied with the shipment. The tomatoes in Shipments #1, #2, and #3 were graded as US. No. 3 by a USDA inspector at Petitioner's plant outside Miami prior to shipment. The procedure followed is for the inspector to inspect batch lots containing amounts far greater than that in any one of the shipments in question here. The inspector puts his stamp of grade on a master inspection certificate. Thereafter, whenever any tomatoes are drawn from that batch for sale and shipment, the Petitioner's employees are authorized to mark the appropriate grade for that shipment onto the documentation relating to it. There is no additional inspection by the USDA at origin. However, Petitioner could provide a document trail for only two shipments. One, of 1,368 boxes to Puerto Rico on February 3, 1982, was Shipment #2. Certificate No. B 135642, referring to Gas Lot 306, reflecting a grading of US. No. 3 on February 2, 1982, can be traced to that shipment. Certificate No. B 135588, which was offered in support of Shipment #3, on February 5, 1982, affords reasonable connection to that shipment. There is no documentation, other than Petitioner's own shipping memorandum, which relates to the preshipment grading of the tomatoes in Shipment #1. No credible evidence was introduced to establish the grade of produce in this shipment which failed to grade out as US. No. 3 upon delivery. I therefore find that the grade assigned by the inspector at the delivery point is controlling and that the shipment of 1,296 boxes on January 28, 1982, was not US. Grade No. 3. Respondent deducted $3.25 per box on Shipment #1 ($4,212), $1.50 per box on Shipment #2 ($2,050), $2.50 per box on Shipment #3 ($3,420), and $2 per box on Shipment #4 ($2,356), plus $752.40 each on Shipments #2 and #3 for gassing and freight to the gashouse.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter an order finding that Respondent is indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $5,470. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth M. Clayton, Esquire Michael T. Hand, Esquire 220 North Palmetto Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc. c/o Mr. Rosario Strano Post Office Box 3064 Florida City, Florida 33034 Peerless Insurance Company 62 Maple Avenue Keene, New Hampshire 0343
Findings Of Fact Junior Martin, Petitioner, is a farmer d/b/a/ Junior Martin Farms in the State of Florida. Bastista Madonia is a farmer doing business in Florida and West Virginia and a licensed broker in Florida and packer of agricultural products d/b/a/ East Coast Brokers and Packers. Madonia holds Florida license no. 3906 supported by bond no. 743F4618 written by Travelers Indemnity Company as surety. In the summer of 1984 James DiMare, Bastista Madonia, and Junior Martin entered into a Farming Agreement (Exhibit 1) to establish a joint venture to grow cherry tomatoes in the fall 1984 farming season and, if successful, to continue this agreement into the spring season. Pursuant to this agreement approximately fifty (50) acres of tomatoes would be grown by Martin. DiMare and Madonia agreed to supply all plants and $500 cash per acre for which they would own 25 percent of the crop and the profits derived therefrom. East Coast Brokers (Madonia) was to supply picking bins and advance all picking money. Two dollars ($2) per package was to be charged for packing and thirty cents ($.30) per package for selling. Costs for growing the tomatoes was approximately $2,250 per acre. With their advance of $500 per acre and providing plants DiMare and Madonia financed approximately 25 percent of the growing cost of which they were to receive 25 percent of the profits. They were also to advance funds to harvest the tomatoes and deliver them to the packing house. In addition, Madonia paid for two (2) deliveries of tomato stakes to Martin's farm. The tomato crop planted in the fall of 1984 froze and was a total loss. DiMare then pulled out of the agreement. The agreement provided that if both parties are satisfied and things are going well by October 15, all parties will continue this venture by planting a spring crop. Madonia offered to contribute DiMare's share as well as his own for a spring Crop and Martin agreed to plant the spring crop. The spring crop was harvested from late March 1985 through late May 1985 (exhibit 4) at a profit. It is from this venture only that Martin bases his claim. In auditing the records, the Department of Agriculture investigator did not consider the transactions involving the fall crop because that had occurred more than nine (9) months before Martin's complaint. Section 604.21(1) Florida Statutes limits the time frame in which a complaint may be brought. Following the harvesting of the spring crop, Martin and Madonia went to Virginia to look into the feasibility of planting a summer crop in Virginia. They obtained suitable land to lease and, under a modification of their agreement, Madonia would put up most of the money required for the land, fertilizer, etc., and would be entitled to 50 percent of the profits. This venture was unsuccessful and resulted in a large loss, none of which has been paid by Martin. This endeavor was not included in the Department of Agriculture's audit because it occurred outside Florida and beyond the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Agriculture. The parties discussed a fall 1985 crop after the debacle in Virginia and the Respondent advanced $10,000 to Petitioner for this crop (exhibit 16). This crop was never planted and the Petitioner has rendered no accounting for this advance. The endeavors by Madonia and Martin to grow fall and spring crops in Florida and a summer crop in Virginia were ongoing farming operations carried out pursuant to the Farming Agreement (Exhibit 1). As such, the endeavor was a joint farming venture with Martin providing the land (in Florida) and the farming expertise while Madonia provided plants and funds equal to one-fourth of the expenses and the marketing experience to sell the crops. Accordingly this endeavor was exempt from the provisions of Section 604.15-604.34 Florida Statutes, by Section 604.16(1) (Florida Statutes). The audit conducted by the Department of Agriculture (exhibit 6) showed Petitioner was owed $18,401.91 by Madonia as a buyer for the 1985 spring crop only. This figure does not include any advances over and above the $500 per acre advanced to Martin by Madonia for the fall crop 1984, or the advances for the Virginia operation in excess of the amount agreed to be provided by Madonia. Nor does this figure reflect the 25 percent of the profits due Madonia pursuant to the Farming Agreement. The amount Petitioner claims is owed to him by the Respondent for the spring crop is $60,632.86 (exhibit 7). This balance was prepared by Mrs. Martin from her records. Numerous checks endorsed by Petitioner which he received from Madonia were not included in those figures. Although cashed by Petitioner, they did not get into Mrs. Martin's bookkeeping records. Mrs. Martin acknowledged that she was not sure that she properly credited all of the checks she did receive from Madonia to the spring crop account. Accordingly, this figure is totally unreliable. Disregarding the fall 1984 crop and the Virginia episode, and accepting the Department of Agriculture's audit figures of $18,401.91 as the profits on the spring crops, 25 percent should go to Respondent pursuant to the Farming Agreement. This would leave $13,801.43 owed to Petitioner. From this should be deducted, at least, the $10,000 advance given to the Petitioner for the fall crop of 1985 which was never planted. The parties are engaged in civil litigation to resolve the disputes engendered by the farming activities above discussed. In those proceedings, all of the activities in which they participated pursuant to the Farming Agreement can be considered by the tribunal and resolved. Accordingly, that is the proper forum to resolve the disputes here in issue.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations entered into the record, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The parties: The Petitioners, Buck Flowers and Ray Thornton, are commercial fishermen doing business within the State of Florida. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect their business interests. The Petitioner, Organized Fishermen of Florida, Inc., is an association of commercial fishermen, fish processors, fish dealers, fish brokers, seafood restaurants, and fish retailers doing business in the State of Florida. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect its interests and the interests of its membership. The Petitioner, Tim Adams, is a commercial fisherman doing business in Florida. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect his interests. The Petitioner, Bird Island Fishery, is a harvester and wholesaler of fish within the State of Florida and its interests would be substantially affected by the enactment of the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Kim Gerz, is a commercial fisherman whose interests would be substantially affected by the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Goodrich Seafood, is a company that unloads and ships fresh fish in the State of Florida. Its interests would be substantially affected by the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Lee County Fisherman's Cooperative, Inc., is a company that unloads and ships fresh fish. Its interests would be substantially affected by the proposed rules. The Petitioner, Sigma International Co., is an exporter of mullet roe. If enacted, the proposed rules would substantially affect its business. The Respondent, Marine Fisheries Commission, is an entity created by statute to serve within the Department of Natural Resources and empowered with rulemaking authority as set forth in Section 370.027, Florida Statutes. The Intervenor, Florida League of Anglers, Inc., is a corporation whose purpose is to protect and enhance Florida's fisheries and their habitats. The Intervenor, Florida Conservation Association, is an affiliate of the Coastal Conservation Association, whose main interests are to protect and enhance Florida's fisheries and marine environments for recreational fishing in Florida. The Intervenor, Florida Audubon Society, is a corporation whose main purpose is to protect Florida's natural outdoor environment and wildlife. The Intervenor, Florida Wildlife Federation, is a corporation whose main purpose is to protect Florida's natural outdoor environment and wildlife. Background of the proposed rules: The Department of Natural Resources began a study of issues related to the black mullet fishery within this state in 1987. The study was to cover a five year period beginning in 1987-88. It was anticipated that the study would serve as the genesis for regulations to be imposed on black mullet fishing within the State of Florida. In 1989, the Commission adopted rules related to black mullet fishing. Those rules specified periods during which black mullet could not be fished, set gear restrictions, closed designated areas to fishing, amended qualifications to catch commercial quantities of mullet, and set recreational limits. The rules specified that during 15 weekends of the year, black mullet fishing would be closed for 30 hour periods. Another restriction, to become effective July 1, 1992, established a minimum net mesh size of three inches. In 1990, the Commission adopted additional rules related to black mullet fishing: new areas were closed to fishing, minimum net mesh size during roe season was increased to four inches, commercial fishermen were prohibited from using spotter aircraft to locate schools, and weekend closures were extended from 30 to 54 hours with the additional stipulation that the fish had to be at the dock by closing time. Further, two additional weekends were closed to fishing. In June, 1991, the Commission met to consider new, more stringent rules related to the black mullet fishery. As a result of the discussions at that meeting, proposed new rules and amendments to rules were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 32, August 9, 1991. The proposed rules: Rule Chapter 46-39, as set forth in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 32, August 9, 1991, provided, in pertinent part: MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION RULE CHAPTER TITLE: RULE CHAPTER NO.: Mullet 46-39 RULE TITLES: RULE NOS.: Recreational Harvest Seasons 46-39.0035 Commercial Harvest, Statewide Regulations 46-39.005 Northwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions 46-39.0055 Southwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions 46-39.0075 East Florida Commercial Harvest estrictions 46-39.0095 PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The purpose of these proposed new rules and rule amendments is to implement additional, more stringent controls on commercial mullet harvest to begin rebuilding mullet populations over the long term to achieve a 35 percent spawning stock biomass ratio (SSBR) for the species statewide. The Commission established the SSBR goal after receiving the results of a five-year study of Florida mullet conducted by the Department of Natural Resources scientists. The state is divided into three areas (Northwest, Southwest, and East Florida) and differential rules are imposed in each area, with the Southwest area being more stringently regulated to coincide with scientific evidence showing a significantly lower SSBR in the area. Week-long closures, year-round in the Southwest and during roe season elsewhere, are considered to be more effective methods to reduce fishing mortality than roe season weekend closures, which are being eliminated. The closures will also apply to recreational harvesters, thus eliminating enforcement problems that occur during periods when recreational mullet harvest is allowed and commercial fishing is prohibited. Limiting gill and trammel nets to a maximum of 600 yards will result in a significant reduction in length of nets being fished in some areas, and may also result in a harvest reduction. Commercial daily vessel limits of 500 pounds during non-roe season are intended to reduce harvest during those periods when mullet are least highly valued. SUMMARY: New Rule 46-39.0035 establishes recreational week-long closures to coincide with commercial closures in the three areas established by new Rules 46-39.0055,46-39.0075, and 46-39.0095. The week-long closures will be during roe season in Northwest and East Florida, and year-round in Southwest Florida. A new paragraph is added to subsection (2) of Rule 46-39.005 to limit gill and trammel nets used to harvest mullet to 600 yards maximum statewide. New Rule 46-39.0055 establishes a commercial mullet closure during the 22nd through the 28th days of the months of September, October, November, and December in the Panhandle and Wakulla-Hernando Regions of the state. Also in this area, a commercial daily vessel possession and landing limit for mullet of 500 pounds is imposed during the months of January through August of each year. New Rule 46-39.0075 establishes a commercial mullet closure during the 22nd through 28th days of the each month of the year in the Pasco-Lee, Collier-Monroe Gulf, and Lake Okeechobee Regions of the state. Also in this area, a commercial daily vessel possession and landing limit for mullet of 500 pounds is imposed during the months of February through September of each year. New Rule 46-39.0095 establishes a commercial mullet closure during the 22nd through the 28th days of the months of October, November, December, and January in the East Coast and St. Johns Regions of the state. Also in this area, a commercial daily vessel possession and landing limit for mullet of 500 pounds is imposed during the months of February through September of each year. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY: Section 370.027(2), Florida Statutes. LAW IMPLEMENTED: Sections 370.025, 370.027, Florida Statutes. SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE RULES: The proposed amendments will directly affect those persons who harvest mullet for commerce. The proposal will indirectly affect wholesale dealers, retail dealers and consumers. The benefit of the measures is to ensure the sustained yield of the renewable mullet resource for human consumption and the food web. The cost of the proposal will be reduced levels of harvest and intermittent supplies of black mullet. The cost will vary regionally with the greatest reductions in the southwest Florida area. The proposed amendments will create a competitive advantage due to the differential regional regulations. The rule will not affect the open market for employment. The rule will affect small businesses. The rule will not increase paperwork or reporting requirements. Agency implementation costs for promulgation, hearings and filing will be approximately $6,500.00; enforcement costs total $38.00/hr. THE MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RULES AT THE TIME, DATE AND PLACE SHOWN BELOW: TIME AND PLACE: 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., September 5, 1991; and 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., September 6, 1991 PLACE: Holiday Inn Tampa International Airport, 4500 West Cypress Street, Tampa Florida All written material received by the Commission within 21 days of the date of publication of this notice shall be made part of the official record. Subsequent to the publication of the notice described above, the Petitioners timely filed challenges to the proposed rules. Pursuant to the notice described above, the Commission met on September 5-6, 1991, for the purpose of conducting a public rulemaking hearing for the proposed new rules and proposed amendments to rules. At the meeting of September 5, 1991, members of the public were permitted to comment on the proposed rules and amendments. On September 6, 1991, the Commission allowed its staff to make a presentation regarding the options available to the Commission and deliberated the proposals before it. As a result of those deliberations, the Commission made substantial changes to the proposed rules. At that time the Commission acknowledged the challenges filed by the Petitioners herein and resolved to submit the changed proposed rules to the Governor and Cabinet for approval upon the favorable resolution of the administrative challenges. The substantially changed proposed rules were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 39, September 27, 1991, and provided, in substance, for the following restrictions: 46-39.0035 Recreational Harvest Seasons--prohibits harvesting during the period of the first day and continuing through the seventh day of each month during the months of September through December of each year for the state waters from the Florida-Alabama border to the Hernando-Pasco County line; prohibits mullet harvesting during the period of the first day and continuing through the fourteenth day of each month during the months of January and September through December of each year for the state waters from the Hernando- Pasco County line to the Dade-Monroe County line, excluding state waters of the Atlantic Ocean in Monroe County and including all waters of Lake Okeechobee; and prohibits harvesting beginning on the first day of the month through the seventh day of each month during the months of January and October through December of each year in all state waters from the Florida-Georgia border to the Collier- Monroe County line, excluding state waters of the Gulf of Mexico in Monroe County and including all waters of the St. Johns River. 46-39.0055 Northwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions-- prohibits harvesting mullet for commercial purposes in the Panhandle and Wakulla-Hernando Regions, as those areas are elsewhere defined, during the period beginning on the first day and continuing through the seventh day of each month during the months of September through December of each year. 46-39.0075 Southwest Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions-- prohibits harvesting mullet for commercial purposes in the Pasco-Lee, Collier- Monroe Gulf, and Lake Okeechobee Regions, as those areas are elsewhere defined, during the period of the first day and continuing through the fourteenth day of each month during the months of January and September through December of each year. 46-39.0095 East Florida Commercial Harvest Restrictions--prohibits harvesting mullet for commercial purposes in the East Coast and St. Johns Regions, as those areas are elsewhere defined, beginning on the first day of the month through the seventh day of each month during the months of January and October through December of each year. The Commission abandoned the 500 pound trip limit previously proposed for each region but retained the limit for gill and trammel nets to 600 yards maximum, statewide. The Commission asserts that the changes to the proposed rules were generated by virtue of the written comments, public testimony, and Commission discussion contained in the record of the public hearing held on September 5-6, 1991. Scientific data: In determining an appropriate guide for managing the black mullet fishery, the Commission staff elected to utilize a system based upon a computer model commonly known as "DSPOPS." The DSPOPS model was designed by Dr. Ault, working with Dr. Mahmoudi, for use in mullet stock assessment. While Dr. Ault developed the model with the intention that Dr. Mahmoudi would use it in mullet stock assessment, Dr. Ault did not prescribe the variables to be inserted into the model or comment to Dr. Mahmoudi as to the advisability of his choices. In fact, the reliability of the model is dependent on utilizing reasonable scientific inputs where variables must be inserted. The spawning stock biomass ratio (SSBR) measures the total mature biomass or weight of the fish stock in an exploited fishery in relation to what it would be if it were unfished. The Commission determined, and the Petitioners have not challenged, that the desirable SSBR for mullet would be 35 percent. By using data from 1988 and 1989, and inserting variables into the DSPOPS model the Commission staff attempted to compute the baseline SSBR for mullet in Florida. The SSBR was calculated by region and was intended to depict the conditions of the mullet stock by each region. The use of SSBR as a tool to evaluate a fishery and propose management of it has been accepted in the past by the Commission and other entities charged with management responsibility. The target of 35 percent SSBR for mullet is a reasonable management goal. In electing which variable to plug into the DSPOPS model, Commission staff chose the conservative estimate or value for the parameter to be inserted. "Conservative" herein is used to mean that choice which would depict the "worst case scenario" and, would, therefore, in theory, err on the side of the preservation of the fish. Such selections, as will be addressed below, were not based upon the best scientific data available and constituted an improper use of the model. In utilizing the DSPOPS model, reasonable and appropriate scientific methodology dictate the use of reasonable values for the variables to be inserted into the model. When values from either extreme of the spectrum are used, the reliability of the output is diminished. That is, the less the probability of the occurrence in the real world would be. In this case, the Commission staff found in its initial stock assessment that the SSBR for mullet in the southwest region was 15.1 and 22.4 in the northwest region. That assessment required inputs in the DSPOPS model for the following parameters: recruitment function; natural mortality; fishing mortality; and sexual maturity. In choosing which input for recruitment function, the Commission staff used a Getz recruitment function. The recruitment function is intended to show the relationship among a designation of the fish population and the amount of new fish born into that population each year. Utilizing the Getz function, instead of the other available recruitment function options, consistently produces the lowest estimate of spawning stock biomass. Had the Commission staff utilized the Beverton and Holt density dependent option, the spawning stock biomass in the northwest region would have increased by 11.73 and in the southwest region by 5.29. With regard to the natural mortality parameter, the Commission staff chose a natural mortality of 0.3. The data available suggests that in Florida the mullet fishery has a natural mortality rate of 0.5. By using the lower value, the DSPOPS model calculated the SSBR at an arbitrarily lower level. Had the Commission staff used 0.43 for the natural mortality input the SSBR would have increased in the northwest region by 3.07 and by 4.79 in the southwest region. Similarly, the Commission staff used extreme variables when inputting the handling mortality. Thus, the computed spawning stock biomass was lower than a midrange option would have produced. Finally, with regard to sexual maturity, mullet achieve sexual maturity at age 4. That age is supported by competent scientific data and is established by the evidence presented in this case. Regardless, Commission staff used a sexual maturity matrix in the DSPOPS model that assumed some fish were still sexually immature at 6 and 7 years. If corrected, the SSBR results would have been increased by 10 percent. By relying on the DSPOPS modeling results for the SSBR assessment, as computed by the Commission staff, the Commission failed to consider the best available biological information regarding the mullet stock. When corrected parameters are input into the DSPOPS model, the SSBR assessment for mullet is dramatically increased. The amount of the increase depends on which parameter is changed. If midpoint values are selected and all inputs are changed, the model produces a SSBR for the northwest region of 52.74 and for the southwest region of 36.19. Economic data: Economic impact and small business impact statements were prepared for the proposed rules first published in August, 1991. Statements were not prepared for the amended proposed rules which were approved by the Commission at the September, 1991, meeting. Mullet have a shelf life of four days if handled properly. The bulk of the market demand is for fresh mullet with demand for frozen or smoked mullet being significantly smaller. Closures of longer than four days would require mullet customers to seek other markets for fresh mullet. Restaurants and other entities seeking a constant source of fresh mullet would look to other markets such as Louisiana to fill orders. If lost, such customers are hard to recapture as in the instance of the spanish mackerel market. It is anticipated that businesses relying on the fresh mullet market will lay off employees if extended closures go into effect. The economic impact statement did not estimate the number of people who would be unemployed or underemployed as a result of the closures. The monetary amounts of the lost market created by the reductions expected in the harvest of mullet was not included in the economic impact statement. The short-term and long-term values of lost market could be computed for those directly and indirectly impacted by the proposed rules. It is expected that the financial losses to commercial fishermen, fish wholesalers, and distributors will be considerable. Additionally, loss of mullet roe sales will result in loss of market since no fish stocks are available to substitute for the mullet roe. Options which would minimize the adverse economic impacts the proposed rules would cause for small businesses have not been presented or considered by the Commission. Closures of shorter duration but of more frequency would lessen the economic damage to small businesses. For example, four day closures would not result in the interruption of the availability of fresh mullet. As opposed to what is proposed, regulations which would increase the net mesh size to allow younger fish to remain uncaught would also lessen the economic damage to small businesses. An increase in the year of first capture would increase SSBR. As opposed to what is proposed, regulations setting trip limits for harvesting mullet would lessen the economic damage to small businesses. Setting net restrictions as proposed allows harvesting and lessens the economic damage to small businesses.
The Issue Whether the tomatoes sold to A. Sam and Sons Co., Inc. (Sam and Sons), conformed to the terms of the agreement of sale and whether Sam and Sons paid an appropriate adjusted price for the tomatoes.
Findings Of Fact On June 3, 1985, A. Sam and Sons Co., Inc. (Sam and Sons), purchased by telephone two loads of tomatoes from Quincy Tomato Co., Inc. (Quincy Tomato). The terms of this sale were $6.00 per 25 pound box F.O.B. for 85 percent or better per box, U.S. Department of Agriculture number one tomatoes of fine quality. There is contradictory testimony whether the terms included "no rain checked tomatoes." (A rain check tomato is one which has suffered damage due to a combination of rain or humidity and heat which manifests itself in damage to the shoulder of the tomato.) (Testimony of parties and Page 1, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1.) On June 3, 1985, two loads of tomatoes were picked up by Sam and Sons at Quincy Tomato. Of these two loads, one totalling 1520 25 pound boxes of tomatoes is the subject of this case. This load was received by Sam and Sons in Dunkirk, New York, on June 5, 1985, and inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The report stated, regarding the grade of the tomatoes: "Meets quality requirements, but fails to grade U.S. No. 1 account condition, now contains approximately 75 percent U.S. No. 1 quality." (Testimony of parties and page 2, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1.) This inspection revealed the following percentages regarding the quality and condition of the tomatoes: Damage 7 percent Decay less than 1 percent Sunscald 1 percent Shoulder bruises 10 percent Skin checks 5 percent Total 23+ percent Sam and Sons sent Quincy Tomato a telegram (See Page 3, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1) on June 5, 1985, which stated as follows: Re UL-127 invoice #3 Arrived June 5 1985 on trailer #811TPZ New Jersey Tomato received under protest. Tomatoes show rain check, decay, sun scaled (sic), brown spot and discoloration. Tomatoes will be reinspected by June 10 1985. An adjustment (sic) on prices will be made. On June 10, 1985, the load of tomatoes was reinspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This inspection report (See Page 4, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1) stated with regard to grade: "Meets quality requirements but fails to grade U.S. No. 1 only account condition. Lot now contains approximately 75 percent U.S. No. 1 Quality." The report revealed the following concerning the quality and condition of the tomatoes: Damage 8 percent Decay 1 percent Shoulder bruises 9 percent Skin checks 9 percent Total 27 percent When first inspected, the shipment contained over 23 percent of tomatoes which failed to meet the quality and grade standards. When reinspected on June 10, 1985, the shipment 27 percent of the tomatoes did not meet the quality and grade standards. Quincy Tomato was permitted up to 15 percent tomatoes which did not meet the quality and grading standards. The load contained an average of 10 per cent more substandard tomatoes that it was permitted to contain. Sam and Sons had the right to refuse the shipment or to accept the shipment and adjust the price after notice. They elected to do the latter. Having been notified and having not responded, the Seller is deemed to have accepted these terms. On September 11, 1985, Sam and Sons tendered a check for $6,266 to Quincy Tomato. (See Page 6, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1.) This worked out to $4.1224 per 25 pound box, or a 31 percent reduction in price. Quincy Tomato accepted the check and proceeded against the agricultural bond of Sam and Sons.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Petitioner be permitted to recover up $1,942 from Respondents bond if this amount is not paid by Respondent to Petitioner within 30 days of the entry of the agency's final order. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of December 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Graves Williams Quincy Tomato Company, Inc. Post Office Box 245 Quincy, Florida 32351 Mr. Esau Sam A. Sam and Sons Produce Co., Inc. West Lake Road Dunkirk, NY 14048 William C. Harris, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ted Helms, Chief Bureau of License and Bond 418 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe W. Kight Bureau of License and Bond Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Travelers Indemnity Company One Tower Square Hartford, Conn. 06115
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 17, 2008, and, if so, what penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a restaurant located at 2054 State Road 436, Suite 128, Winter Park, Florida, holding Permanent Food Service license number 5811081. On March 12, 2008, Wilfredo Goris, a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division, performed a food service inspection of the Respondent. During the inspection, Mr. Goris observed 17 live roaches inside a box containing light bulbs in front of the three-compartment sink, two roaches on a water heater in the same general area as the three-compartment sink, and three dead roaches in the vicinity of the three-compartment sink. Mr. Goris showed the roaches to Carlos Nevarez, the manager of Stacked Subs, to make him aware of the problem. Mr. Goris prepared and signed an inspection report detailing his findings during the inspection. Mr. Nevarez also signed the report to indicate receipt of the inspection report. The Division advises its inspectors that all reports of pest activities should be forwarded to the Tallahassee office for review. Mr. Goris sent his inspection report to Tallahassee for a determination of how to proceed against Stacked Subs, i.e., whether to allow the restaurant to remain in operation or to suspend its license until the roach infestation is eliminated. Mr. Goris testified that the Tallahassee office decided that because the roach activity was in the kitchen area, the restaurant should be closed as a threat to public health until the facility was cleaned and sanitized. Mr. Nevarez testified that all the roaches were in a box of fluorescent light bulbs that had been brought in from a storage unit a couple of weeks earlier. The box was removed immediately after the inspection. According to Mr. Nevarez, once the box was removed, the roach problem was eliminated. To corroborate his testimony, Mr. Nevarez submitted a service report from Anteater Pest and Lawn Services, a large pest and lawn company. Anteater's technician arrived at Stacked Subs at 4 p.m. on March 12, 2008, and stayed until 5:30 p.m., inspecting the facility and treating any potential entry point for pests. Anteater's technician could find no roaches inside the restaurant. Mr. Goris returned to Stacked Subs the next day, March 13, 2008. Mr. Goris found no roaches and allowed the restaurant to reopen. Mr. Nevarez submitted photographs of the restaurant to show where Mr. Goris found the box containing the roaches. Mr. Goris viewed the photographs and agreed with Mr. Nevarez as to the location of the box. The photographs indicate that the box was placed next to a hot water heater in the very back of the restaurant, well away from the food preparation area. However, the kitchen is of a long, open galley-type construction, and there were no dividing walls between the hot water heater and the food preparation area. Therefore, the box containing the roaches was technically in the kitchen. A critical violation is a violation that poses an immediate danger to the public. A non-critical violation is a violation that does not pose an immediate danger to the public, but needs to be addressed because if left uncorrected, it can become a critical violation. Roaches are carriers of diseases, including staphylococcus. The presence of roaches in the vicinity of the food preparation area constitutes a critical violation. The Division presented no evidence of prior disciplinary action against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order imposing a fine of $500.00, payable under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 2008.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether Respondent owes Petitioner payment for approximately 728 crates of green cabbages. This requires a determination of whether Respondent acted properly in consigning the load to Tampa Bay Produce rather than returning the cabbages to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a grower doing business at his farm at Route 1, Box 1 in Hastings, St. Johns County, Florida. Respondent, Battaglia Produce, Inc., is a produce broker with an office in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Its President, Tony Battaglia, has been a produce broker for thirty-five years. Respondent, South Carolina Insurance Company, is the bonding agent for Battaglia pursuant to Section 604.20, Florida Statutes. On May 19, 1988, Burrell sold a load of 791 crates of cabbages to Battaglia for and on the account of Publix Supermarkets, Inc. It is uncontroverted that at the time the cabbages left the field they were of good quality. The load was rejected by Publix in Lakeland on May 20, 1988. A sample of 30 crates out of the load revealed 27 crates were under the industry standard weight of fifty pounds. Battaglia learned that freight for the load back to Hastings would be expensive, so he consigned the load to Tampa Bay Produce, Inc., in Tampa, Florida for the purpose of sale. The subsequent consignment to Tampa Bay Produce was without the prior consent of Burrell. Battaglia has had an ongoing good business relationship with Burrell. Burrell's loads have been rejected at times in the past and Battaglia has never had problems obtaining Burrell's prior permission for disposing of the loads. Battaglia handles a total of approximately 1000 loads of cabbage a season and approximately 15% get rejected. He typically tries to resell the load to get the best advantage for the grower. Tampa Bay had some delay in selling the load. Some cabbages spoiled, and on May 31, 1988, 420 crates were dumped. The remainder sold for $606.00. Tampa Bay Produce deducted its 15% handling charge and paid Battaglia $515.00 for the load. In his accounting to Charles Burrell dated June 22, 1988, Battaglia deducted freight from Hastings to Lakeland and from Lakeland to Tampa and a pre- cooling charge in Tampa. He showed a net loss of $153.15 for the load. Battaglia did not claim a brokerage fee. Battaglia deducted the $153.15 from other funds it owed Burrell for other cabbage loads and paid Burrell the balance appearing on an accounting of this and eight other loads of cabbage, dated June 23, 1988. At the hearing the Burrells amended their request for payment to add the $153.15 deducted for the load. Burrell computed an average underweight based on the 30-crate sample from Publix and adjusted his invoice to Battaglia to reflect an 8% reduction. The invoice is dated June 27, 1988. Burrell claims that the 791 crates were sold for $4.60 per crate, for a total of $3,638.60. The 30 crates weighed an average of 46.14 pounds or eight percent less than the 50-lb. industry standard. An eight percent adjustment in the cost yields a total of $3,347.51. Burrell does not contest the underweight findings by Publix. He insists that he should have been informed immediately and given a change to bring the shipment back, repack the cabbages and sell them again. Instead, someone from Battaglia called Barbara Burrell on May 21st to tell her the load was turned down by Publix and was shipped to Tampa. She called Battaglla several times to get details on the short weight so that she could adjust their bill, but she was unable to get any information until the latter part of June, and by then Battaglia's position was that the load was a net loss. She obtained the weight information eventually from Publix. Battaglia claims that he acted professionally in handling the load and that he owes no additional funds to Burrell.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered requiring that Respondent pay to Petitioner the sum of $3500.66 and informing Respondent that failure to make such payment within fifteen (15) days will result in recovery from its surety, as provided in Subsection 604.21(8), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 20th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles R. Burrell Charles R. Burrell Farms Route 1, Box 1 Hastings, Florida 32045 Ralph V. Hadley, III, Esquire Hadley and Asma Post Office Box 1340 Winter Garden, Florida 32787 South Carolina Insurance Company Post Office Box 1 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Ben H. Pridgeon, Jr., Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 418 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioners for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioners are producers and sellers of tomatoes. They own and operate Sunfresh Farms in Florida City, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products. The Controversy The instant case involves two separate transactions involving the sale of tomatoes pursuant to verbal agreements between Petitioners (as the sellers) and Respondent (as the buyer). Both transactions occurred in January of 1995. The First Transaction (Petitioners' Invoice Number 5270) Under the terms of the first of these two verbal agreements (First Agreement), Respondent agreed to purchase from Petitioners, and Petitioners agreed to sell to Respondent (FOB), 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes for $12.65 a box (which was the market price at the time). In accordance with the terms of the First Agreement, Petitioners delivered 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent (at Petitioners' loading dock) on January 23, 1995. Respondent accepted the delivery. Respondent sold these 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to a local produce house, which subsequently sold the tomatoes to another local produce house. The tomatoes were eventually sold to a company in Grand Rapids, Michigan. On January 28, 1995, five days after Petitioners had delivered the 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent, the tomatoes were inspected in Grand Rapids, Michigan. According to the inspection certificate, the inspection revealed: "Decay (3 to 28 percent)(mostly early, some advanced stages);" "Checksum;" and "Average approximately 85 percent light red to red." Petitioners have yet to be paid any of $1,214.40 Respondent owes them (under the terms of the First Agreement) for the 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes they delivered to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The Second Transaction (Petitioners' Invoice Number 5299) Under the terms of the second verbal agreement at issue in the instant case (Second Agreement), Respondent agreed to purchase from Petitioners, and Petitioners agreed to sell to Respondent (FOB), 132 boxes of ("no grade") cherry tomatoes for $12.65 a box. In accordance with the terms of the Second Agreement, Petitioners delivered 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent (at Petitioners' loading dock) on January 27, 1995. Respondent accepted the delivery. Respondent sold 84 of these 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes to a Florida produce house, which subsequently sold the tomatoes to a company in Houston, Texas. These 84 boxes of cherry tomatoes were inspected in Houston, Texas, on January 31, 1995, four days after Petitioners had delivered them to Respondent. The defects found during the inspection were noted on the inspection certificate. Petitioners have yet to be paid in full for the 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes they delivered to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the Second Agreement. Respondent tendered payment (in the form of a check) in the amount of $811.20, but Petitioners refused to accept such payment because it did not represent the full amount ($1,669.80) Respondent owed them (under the terms of the Second Agreement) for these cherry tomatoes. (Although they have not endorsed or cashed the check, Petitioners are still holding it in their possession.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent is indebted to Petitioners in the amount of $2,884.20, (2) directing Respondent to make payment to Petitioners in the amount of $2,884.20 within 15 days following the issuance of the order, (3) indicating that the $811.20 check that was previously tendered to Petitioners by Respondent (and is still in Petitioners' possession) will be considered partial payment of this $2,884.20 indebtedness, if Respondent advises Petitioners, in writing, that it desires the check to be used for such purpose and if it provides Petitioners written assurance that the check is still a valid negotiable instrument; and (4) announcing that if payment in full of this $2,884.20 indebtedness is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from the Farm Bureau, Respondent's surety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of February, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 2nd day of February, 1996.
