Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Thomas J. Chastain, is an agricultural producer and packer in Arcadia, Florida. The Respondent, C. J. Prettyman, Jr., Inc., is a agricultural broker doing business in Exmore, Virginia. Pursuant to an oral agreement, the Respondent has acted as a broker for agricultural products shipped to him by the Petitioner. (Testimony of C. J. Prettyman, Jr.). The complaint filed against the Respondent alleged a failure to properly package and account for five shipments of cucumbers and/or peppers shipped to the Respondent between November 7, 1978 and December 15, 1978. The first disputed shipment occurred November 7, 1978, and involved the sale of 750 cartons of cucumbers in the amount of $1,250.00 on invoice number 2775. (Respondent Exhibit 1A). These cucumbers were subsequently sold to Whamco, Inc., and shipped to Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Respondent Exhibit 1B). On November 11, 1978, the cucumbers were inspected by the United States Department of Agriculture in Minneapolis and found to require repacking due to decay which caused a $560.55 deduction from the amount paid Respondent by Whamco and a corresponding deduction in the amount due the Petitioner. (Respondent Exhibit 1C). The amount due the Petitioner from the sale of the cucumbers on invoice number 2775 is $689.45. On November 15, 1978, 205 assorted cucumbers were sold by the Petitioner to Wick and Brothers, Inc., a wholesale fruit and produce merchant. (Respondent Exhibit 4). Included in the shipment of cucumbers to Wick were cucumbers belonging to other growers. Wick paid the Petitioner for 300 boxes of cucumbers on November 30, 1978. (Respondent Exhibit 3). The Petitioner, therefore, received payment for 95 boxes of cucumbers owned by another grower for whom the Respondent acted as broker. In order to recoup the monies due the other grower, the Respondent deducted $308.75 from the amount due the Petitioner. (Testimony of Respondent). Similarly, Wick purchased 450 boxes of "super cukes" from Petitioner on November 20, 1978. (Respondent Exhibit 6). Wick, however, paid the Petitioner for 700 boxes of cucumbers on December 7, 1978. (Respondent Exhibit 5). Petitioner was thus paid for 250 boxes of cucumbers which were the property of Respondent or another grower. Again to recoup the monies due another grower, the Respondent deducted $562.50 from the amount due the Petitioner. (Testimony of Respondent). Respondent invoiced 600 packages of large peppers on December 15, 1979, at a price per unit of $8.00. (Respondent Exhibit 2B). On the same day, the Petitioner sent the Respondent a statement invoicing 600 large peppers at $9.00. (Respondent Exhibit 2). The 600 peppers were sold by the Respondent to Weiss Market for $8.00. (Testimony of Respondent). The $8.00 sale price was based on the prevailing market rate. (Testimony of Respondent). Invoice number 2911 was not disputed by the parties at the final hearing.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter an Order finding that the Petitioner is due the amount of $982.09 from the sale of these agricultural products by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Earl Peterson, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Division of Marketing Room 418, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Thomas J. Chastain Star Route "A", Box 110 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 C. J. Prettyman, III Vice President C. J. Prettyman, Jr., Inc. Broad Street Exmore, Virginia 23350 The Travelers Indemnity Company One Tower Square Hartford, Connecticut
The Issue Whether Respondents Veg Service, Inc., and Western Surety Company are justly indebted to Dixie Growers, Inc., for Florida- grown agricultural products which Dixie Growers, as the agent for the producers of the products; sold to Veg Service?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Dixie Growers, located in Plant City, Florida, is a producer, packer, and seller of Florida-grown agricultural products. It also acts as a sales agent for growers of Florida agricultural products, and in that capacity is a producer of agricultural products. Ms. Linda T. Lawton is the Vice President/Secretary for Dixie Growers, Inc. Mr. George Locklear is a salesman for the company. It is the practice of Dixie Growers, Inc., to pay the growers who provide it with agricultural products to be sold on the open market within 10 to 14 days of shipment unless the broker or purchaser to whom the products are sold notifies Dixie of a problem. This practice was made known to Veg Service before the incidents which led to these proceedings. Whenever Dixie receives notice of a problem with the shipment prior to payment of the grower, Dixie places a "trouble" memorandum on the top of the file. In such a case, Dixie does not usually pay the grower until the problem has been resolved with the broker and then only in an amount that does not exceed what Dixie receives from the broker or purchaser. Veg Services, Inc., is a negotiating broker of Florida agricultural products, some of which it has purchased from Dixie Growers. In this capacity Veg Services is a dealer in agricultural products. The company is located in Pompano Beach, Florida. Western Surety Company is the issuer of bonds to Veg Services, Inc., in amounts sufficient to cover the disputes involved in this proceeding. Case No. 96-3995A On June 1, 1996, Dixie Growers sold 260 boxes, (1 and 1/9th bushels each), of fancy eggplant to Veg Services. The price was $8.00 per box for a price of $2,080 for the entire shipment. On June 5, 1996, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, at a cost of $278, conducted an inspection of the 260 boxes of eggplant in Providence, Rhode Island at the premises of Tourtellot and Company, Inc. Under the section marked "Grade" in the inspection certificate, the eggplant was found to fail "to grade U.S. No. 1." On the same day as the inspection, Dixie Growers received by fax a copy of the inspection, Inspection Certificate K-195345-4. In accord with its customary practice, Dixie Growers placed a "trouble" memorandum in its file so that it would not pay the grower of the eggplant until the trouble was resolved. On June 17, 1996, Dixie Growers received a fax of the invoice from Veg Services marked, "OK." Interpreting the "OK," to mean that payment would be in full, George Locklear called Veg Service to double-check. He talked with Martin Shield and Marcie, a member of the office staff. First Marcie and then Mr. Shield stated that the invoice would be paid in full. Before the growers were paid on the strength of the representations of the two Veg Service employees made June 17, however, Deborah Lawton, Dixie's bookkeeper asked Mr. Locklear to inquire as to whether the cost of the inspection ($278,) would be deducted from the payment. Marcie told Mr. Locklear that payment would be in full with nothing deducted for the inspection. With the understanding that payment would be made in full with nothing deducted for the cost of the inspection, Dixie Growers paid the growers of the eggplant in full. On July 1, 1996, after payment had been made by Dixie Growers to the growers of the eggplant, it received a fax from Veg Services that it would be paid only $1.60 per box instead of the full $8.00 per box. When Mr. Locklear called to inquire about the fax, Marcie told him that Veg Services had made a mistake when it said that payment would be in full. Dixie Growers received payment in the amount of $416.00 leaving $1,664.00 still due. Case No. 96-3996A On April 27, 1996, Dixie Growers sold 65 boxes of medium squash, 200 boxes of select cucumber and 60 boxes of cabbages to Veg Service. No trouble with the produce was ever reported by Veg Service to Dixie Growers. Nor was there ever made a federal inspection of the produce. The total bill for the sale was $2610.00. On May 9, 1996, another sale was made by Dixie Growers to Veg Service: 154 boxes of medium zucchini, 72 boxes of small squash, 72 boxes of medium squash, 50 boxes of choice cucanelle and 120 boxes of large cucumbers. No trouble with any of the produce was ever reported by Veg Service to Dixie Growers. Nor was there a federal inspection conducted. The bill for the sale was $4,360.00. On June 12, 1996, payment was received for the April 27 sale in the amount of $1,280 leaving a balance of $1,330. The same day payment was received for the May 9 sale in the amount of $2,259.50 leaving a balance due of $2,100.50. Invoices showing the balances due for the two sales were mailed by certified mail to Veg Service. Following phone calls by Dixie Growers, at the request of Veg Service staff, the invoices were later faxed twice to Veg Service. The two balances, totalling $3,430.50, had not been paid as of final hearing. Had any trouble with either sale been communicated to Dixie Growers prior to the payment it made to the growers of the produce, then Dixie Growers would not have paid the growers until the problem was resolved. Since Veg Service did not communicate any problem with either sale in any way, Dixie Growers paid the growers. Case No. 4727A On June 6, 1996, Dixie Growers sold Veg Service 500 boxes of fancy eggplant, 200 boxes of choice eggplant, 600 boxes of large bell peppers, 200 boxes of extra large bell peppers and 50 boxes of long hot peppers. The invoice for the sale shows $14,200 due for the produce and a charge of $23.50 listed for "Temp.Recrd," for a total invoiced amount of $14,223.50. On July 17, 1996, Dixie Growers received a check from Veg Services for $10,262.50 for the June 6 sale leaving a balance of $3,961.00. When George Locklear of Dixie Growers inquired of Veg Service as to why the invoiced amount had not been fully paid, he was told that a federal inspection had shown that the peppers were smaller than as represented by Dixie Growers. This was the first time that Dixie Growers had received any notice from Veg Service that there was any trouble with the June 6 sale. The inspection was faxed to Dixie Growers on July 31, 1996, long after Dixie Growers had paid the growers of the produce. The fee for the inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture was $111.00. That fee had been deducted by Veg Service when it paid the invoice amount so that the amount claimed due by Dixie Growers in this case ($3,961) is the sum of the inspection fee ($111) and a balance not paid on the produce sold, ($3,850).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order adjudicating Veg Service, Inc., to be indebted to Dixie Growers, Inc., in the amount of $9,055.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Charles E. Lawton, President Dixie Growers, Inc. Post Office Box 1686 Plant City, Florida 33564-1686 Herbert Shield, President Veg Service, Inc. 150 SW 12th Avenue, Suite 370 Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Western Surety Company Legal Department 101 South Phillips Avenue Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57102
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents owe Petitioner $13,512.09 for watermelons, as alleged in the Amended Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. Cook Brown Farms is a melon farm in Punta Gorda, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Cook Brown Farms was a "producer" as defined in Subsection 604.15(5), Florida Statutes, of agricultural products in the State of Florida. Melons come within the definition of "agricultural products" as defined in Subsection 604.15(3), Florida Statutes. J.G.L. Produce is a Florida Corporation, owned by John W. Johnson, Jr., and located in Pompano Beach, Florida. At times pertinent to this proceeding, J.G.L. Produce was licensed as a "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in Subsection 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Andrew J. Cook, a principal owner of Cook Brown Farms, and Mr. Johnson of J.G.L. Produce entered into an oral agreement regarding the sale of watermelons grown at Cook Brown Farms. The core of this case is a dispute concerning the nature of this agreement. Mr. Cook testified that, under the agreement, J.G.L. Produce would purchase the melons at the farm at their daily market price, plus 1/2 cent to cover Cook Brown Farms' cost of picking, sorting, and placing the melons in special bins and in special pallets required by the ultimate purchaser, Kroger Supermarkets. J.G.L. Produce would provide the bins and pallets and would provide the trucks to ship the melons. Mr. Johnson testified that the agreement was not for purchase but for brokerage of the melons. J.G.L. Produce would act as broker of Cook Brown Farms' watermelons, use its best efforts to sell the melons at the highest price available, and pay Cook Brown Farms the proceeds of the sale, minus expenses and a brokerage fee of one cent per pound. Mr. Johnson testified that J.G.L. Produce never took title to or purchased the melons, and that the risk of loss always remained on Cook Brown Farms. Mr. Johnson testified that he approached Mr. Cook about the melons because he had a ready buyer in another local dealer, Delk Produce, which had a longstanding arrangement to provide melons to Kroger. Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Cook that the arrangement included the provision of bins and pallets by J.G.L. Produce, though Mr. Johnson stated that the arrangement also called for J.G.L. Produce to retain $0.015 per pound from the amount paid to Cook Brown Farms to cover the cost of the bins and pallets. J.G.L. Produce took approximately 24 truck loads of watermelons from Cook Brown Farms. J.G.L. Produce deducted a one cent per pound brokerage fee from each load of melons it took, except for certain loads noted below, without contemporaneous objection from Cook Brown Farms. The Amended Complaint claims that J.G.L. Produce owes money to Cook Brown Farms for five of the loads taken by J.G.L. Produce. In sum, the Amended Complaint states that J.G.L. Produce owes Cook Brown Farms $19,991.74 for the five loads, less $6,479.65 already paid, for a total owing of $13,512.09. Item One of the Amended Complaint alleges that J.G.L. Produce owes $4,438.54 for a load of 38,596 pounds at a price of $0.115 per pound, sold on April 20, 2000. Item Two of the Amended Complaint alleges that J.G.L. Produce owes $4,625.30 for a load of 40,220 pounds at a price of $0.115 per pound, sold on April 21, 2000. The Amended Complaint alleges that the melons on these two loads were inspected and approved for shipment during loading by Delk Produce employee Freddie Ellis. The Amended Complaint states that Cook Brown Farms was paid in full for the loads on May 3, 2000, but that the contested amounts were deducted from subsequent settlements by J.G.L. Produce. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Item One were initially sold to Delk Produce for delivery to Kroger. On May 3, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid Cook Brown Farms the amount of $4,438.54, which constituted the price for 38,596 pounds of melons at $0.125 per pound, less $385.96 for the one cent per pound brokerage fee. Jay Delk, the principal of Delk Produce, testified that this load was rejected by Kroger's buyer in Virginia due to "freshness," meaning that the melons were unsuitably green. Mr. Delk stated that the melons were taken to North Carolina to ripen and eventually sold at $0.06 per pound. The final return on this load, less the brokerage fee, was $1,543.84. In its final settlement with Cook Brown Farms on May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce deducted the difference between the original payment of $4,438.54 and the final payment of $1,543.84. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Item Two were initially sold to Delk Produce. On May 3, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid Cook Brown Farms the amount of $5,809.80, which constituted the price for 50,520 pounds of watermelons at $0.125 per pound, less $505.20 for the one cent per pound brokerage fee. Seminole Produce purchased 10,300 pounds of this load at $0.145 per pound, or $1,493.50. The remainder of the load was rejected by Kroger due to freshness and had to be resold at a lesser price of $0.0346 per pound, or $1,391.00. In its final settlement with Cook Brown Farms on May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce deducted the difference between the original payment of $5,809.80 and the final payment (after deduction of the brokerage fee) of $2,576.11. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Item Three were sold to Delk Produce. On May 9, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid Cook Brown Farms the amount of $2,731.30, which constituted the price for 42,020 pounds of watermelons at $0.0675 per pound, less $105.05 for the brokerage fee, reduced to $0.0025 per pound. Mr. Johnson testified that he decided to forego the full brokerage fee to save money for Mr. Cook and his farm, because it was "hurting" due to the rapidly plummeting price for watermelons. Mr. Johnson discovered at this time that Delk Produce had not been retaining the agreed- upon $0.015 per pound to cover the cost of bins and pallets and decided not to lose any more money on that item. In its final settlement with Cook Brown Farms on May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce deducted the difference between the original payment of $2,731.30 and $2,206.05, deducting $525.25 from the original payment to cover the cost of the bins and pallets. The evidence established that the melons claimed under Items Four and Five were originally shipped to Wal-Mart in Kentucky on April 29, 2000, and were rejected on the ground that the melons were not packed to specifications. The melons were trucked back to Florida at J.G.L. Produce's expense. The melons claimed under Item Four totaled 41,100 pounds. J.G.L. Produce divided the melons into four loads and sold them to four local dealers at an average price of $0.775 per pound, totaling $3,185.41. J.G.L. Produce deducted its $0.015 charge for bins and pallets, reducing the total to $2,671.51. J.G.L. Produce then deducted $1,750.00 from the total as reimbursement for the freight charge it paid to bring the melons back to Florida after their rejection by Wal-Mart. J.G.L. Produce did not include a brokerage fee. On May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid the remaining $921.51 to Cook Brown Farms as part of the final settlement. The melons claimed under Item Five totaled 45,600 pounds. J.G.L. Produce sold 2,426 pounds to Seminole Produce at $0.10 per pound, or $242.60. J.G.L. Produce sold the remaining 43,174 pounds to Belle Glade Produce at $0.065 per pound, or $2,800. From the total for Item Five, J.G.L. Produce deducted its $0.015 charge for bins and pallets and $1,950.00 for the freight charge it paid to bring the melons back to Florida after their rejection by Wal-Mart. J.G.L. Produce did not include a brokerage fee on this load of melons. On May 26, 2000, J.G.L. Produce paid the remaining $416.64 to Cook Brown Farms as part of the final settlement. The weight of the credible evidence, excluding the hearsay that was not supported by the direct testimony of Mr. Johnson, leads to the finding that there was a brokerage arrangement between the parties. J.G.L. Produce routinely deducted brokerage fees from its payments, without objection by Cook Brown Farms. This course of dealing strongly indicates a brokerage arrangement. Mr. Cook testified as to prior dealings with J.G.L. Produce, which also involved a brokerage arrangement. The evidence indicated that J.G.L. Produce fully accounted for the five loads of melons at issue, and paid Cook Brown Farms the full amounts due and owing for those loads.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing the Amended Complaint filed by Gin Brown Matthews, d/b/a Cook Brown Farms. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Redland Insurance Company 222 South 15th Street, Suite 600, North Omaha, Nebraska 65102 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 John W. Johnson, President Post Office Box 1123 Pompano Beach, Florida 33061 Harold M. Stevens, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1440 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Edward L. Myrick, Jr., Esquire Beighley & Myrick, P.A. 1255 West Atlantic Boulevard Suite F-2 Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Terry L. Rhodes Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioner relating to the lease of farmland, management of farmland, and the sale of strawberries pursuant to various oral contracts.
Findings Of Fact Tonya Gladney is an individual doing business as Tonya Gladney Farms, an entity dedicated to the business of farming in south central Florida. Gladney learned the farming business from her father. Gladney had been around strawberry farming her whole life and decided to engage in the business independently starting with the 2006-2007 growing season. TGF is a fledgling operation and does not own all of the land, equipment, or resources necessary to actively operate and maintain a farm. That is, TGF found it necessary to lease land from various landowners and to use that land for farming purposes. Further, TGF needed to rent certain farming equipment in order to prepare the leased lands for farming. G&S Melons, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company whose managing member is John Glen Grizzaffe. G&S is a farming operation which has been in existence since 1999. Like Gladney, farming was in Grizzaffe's blood, and his family had been farming since the 1920's. G&S started out as a grower of watermelons, but has grown berries, melons, squash, cucumbers and other produce as well. In recent years, G&S purchased 25 acres of land to be used primarily for strawberry farming, and that area of its business has grown considerably. In 2006, when Grizzaffe and Gladney first started doing business, TGF was G&S's only strawberry producer. G&S markets its produce to several grocery store chains, including SuperValue, Acme, Shaws, Jewel Foods, Food Lion, Sweet Bay, Albertsons and others. Grizzaffe's experience and business relationship with the various chains have allowed him to become a broker of goods produced by other farmers. As a broker, Grizzaffe has experience dealing with buyers and knows how to negotiate the best prices for products in his custody. In 2007, G&S was subleasing some land from C.W. Stump who was leasing the land from its owner, Al Repita. The land, known as Lightfoot Road Farm ("Lightfoot") is located in Wimauma, Hillsborough County. Grizzaffe was paying $325 per acre for the Lightfoot property, which was irrigated, but did not have overhead sprinklers. Grizzaffe held a year-to-year sublease on the property, primarily because Repita had the land up for sale. Grizzaffe expected to retain his lease for the next two or three years, but did not have any long-term expectations. The most credible evidence indicates that Lightfoot encompasses approximately 35 acres. After initial discussions between the parties concerning Lightfoot, Gladney and Grizzaffe met at the farm to further discuss the possible sublease by TGF. Gladney indicated she wanted to grow strawberries and Grizzaffe agreed to sublease the land to her. The sublease agreement was not reduced to writing, nor are there any written terms or conditions associated with the sublease.1 Gladney was unclear as to her understanding of what the terms of the lease were supposed to be. She believed Lightfoot was between 20 and 25 acres in size and would be available for at least two to three years, maybe up to five years. Gladney's testimony was not clear as to what she believed the lease amount to be, but thought $200 to $225 per acre would be about right "if there was any charge." Gladney did not provide any rationale as to why she should not be charged for subleasing the land. Grizzaffe's testimony that he was subleasing Lightfoot to TGF for $325 an acre--exactly what he was paying for it--is credible and makes the most sense in light of all the facts. The size of Lightfoot was a major point of contention between the parties. Inasmuch as there was no written lease, the parties' understanding can only be gleaned from their testimony. Gladney opined the land was 20 to 25 acres based on the fact that TGF had purchased enough plastic to cover 25 acres. Three rolls of plastic (2,400 square feet) would cover one acre and TGF had purchased 75 rolls. It takes 2,000 strawberry plants to cover one acre, and TGF purchased 50,000 plants. Mathematically, Gladney determined there was 25 acres of farmable land at Lightfoot. Grizzaffe's opinion was based on the following evidence: Net acreage is based on 43,560 square feet-per-acre divided by the row center. Strawberries are planted at a distance of four feet between the center of each row, leaving only 10,890 net square feet for planting on the Lightfoot acreage. This equates to 29.8 row acres, plus space in between the rows at Lightfoot, the dirt between the beds, the ditches, and the roadways around the field. So, although there are 20-to-25 acres of ground actually planted, the total gross acreage is higher (in this case approximately 35 acres). Farmland is generally leased by calculating the gross acreage, not merely the part of the land which can be farmed.2 Gladney advised Grizzaffe that between the Lightfoot farm and another farm she was working, G&S could expect between 50 and 60 acres of berries. Such calculations are incredibly important for the effective supply of berries to customers by the broker. Inasmuch as Lightfoot had only drip irrigation available at the time of the subject sublease and because overhead irrigation was necessary to grow strawberries, it was understood between the parties that an overhead irrigation system would have to be installed.3 A major dispute between the parties concerned who would be responsible for installing the overhead irrigation system. Inasmuch as Gladney believed the lease to be less than $225 per acre, it is doubtful she was leasing land with a sprinkler system. Sprinklered farmland usually rents for considerably more, i.e., in the neighborhood of $1,000 per acre. Gladney maintains that Grizzaffe specifically promised to pay for any overhead irrigation system installed on Lightfoot. This made sense to Gladney, because she believed Grizzaffe was going to be able to extend his current lease to a five-year lease. It takes a few years farming a parcel to recoup the expense of an overhead irrigation system. Grizzaffe, on the other hand, knew his lease, which was on a year-to-year basis, might only last two or three more years and that there was no promise of an extension. In fact, the farm is currently being offered for sale, meaning no long- term lease would be available to G&S. Grizzaffe told Gladney that she needed to install the overhead irrigation system in order to assure a quality product, but made no promise to pay for it. While TGF was preparing the farm to plant strawberries for the upcoming season, an overhead sprinkler system was installed. The system was apparently paid for by Gladney, but she claims to have used money furnished by Grizzaffe. There are, however, no written receipts or cancelled checks that indicate a payment by G&S for the sprinkler system. Certain bills or invoices addressing irrigation were generated by James Irrigation, Inc., the company hired to install the overhead system. The James Irrigation statements of account were addressed to Gladney. Other invoices concerning the irrigation system were issued by Gator Pipe and Supply and indicated they were shipped to "Gladney Farms." Gladney made at least one payment of $45,000 directly to James Irrigation as documented in the exhibits admitted at final hearing. The total cost of the overhead irrigation system was approximately $62,000. There are no checks from G&S or Grizzaffe to Gladney or TGF designated as payment for a sprinkler system, nor was there any credible testimony that Grizzaffe would pay for the Lightfoot sprinkler system. When Gladney ceased operations on Lightfoot, she did not take the Rainbird sprinkler heads or pvc pipes with her. In fact, Gladney did not take up the plastic used in growing the strawberries, although that is common practice when leasing land from another producer. Gladney did not, therefore, assert an ownership interest in the sprinkler system. The tenor of the cessation of business between the parties at that time (each seemed angry at the other) may account for Gladney's failure to clean up the Lightfoot property and/or retrieve the sprinkler system. However, Grizzaffe does not assert ownership of the sprinkler system either. It apparently belongs to the owner of the land. The next major point of contention between the parties was the price that G&S was charging TGF to act as intermediary between the grower (TGF) and the buyer (food store chains or others). Gladney contends that G&S agreed to handle and pre-cool all of TGF's berries at the flat rate of $1.00 per box. Gladney further contends that at least one other broker had accepted her berries at the same price. Grizzaffe counters that while his business would not be profitable giving a $1.00 flat rate, some brokers may be able to offer that to growers for ad hoc purchases. However, for a regular arrangement wherein a grower is providing a broker most of its product, that would not be feasible. Grizzaffe maintains the charge for TGF berries was the same charged to all other growers, i.e., 50 cents per box for pre-cooling the berries and 10 percent of the amount of the sale. G&S may charge a slightly higher pre-cool fee based on exceptional circumstances, but 50 cents is the norm. The purchase orders introduced into evidence by G&S include a brokerage fee of 10 percent and a pre-cool fee of 50 cents per box, comporting with his version of the oral contract. Again, the agreement between the parties as to the charge for handling berries was not reduced to writing. The more credible evidence supports G&S's position. TGF alleges that G&S misrepresented the amount it would sell TGF's product to buyers for and that G&S did not sell for the agreed-upon price. Gladney expected her berries to be sold at the USDA Market Price (to be discussed further below). Some purchase orders issued by G&S indicate that TGF berries were sold for several dollars under the USDA Market Price. The USDA Market Price is calculated by USDA utilizing the daily sale of berries by all growers in an area. The average price range is printed in a USDA publication and made available to growers, brokers and buyers as a guideline for negotiating prices in the future. The USDA publication apparently comes out almost daily, setting out the prices paid to local growers on the previous day or days. It is, therefore, a recap of what has been paid, not a projection of future prices to be paid. There is also a less structured means of establishing the "market price." This method involves local growers talking to each other and determining what each had been paid for their product on any given day. Growers often discuss market price, but seldom distinguish between USDA Market Price and the common market price. Gladney maintains that she spoke to Grizzaffe regularly and that he always assured her that her berries would be getting the market price or higher. She seems to believe that Grizzaffe was talking about the USDA Market Price. However, it is generally impossible for any broker to guarantee a price for a product; that is strictly a matter of supply and demand at any given point in time. However, Grizzaffe would benefit from charging the highest price he could get, because he was getting a percentage of the total sale. It is clear from the evidence that TGF berries sometimes were sold at an amount several dollars less than the USDA Market Price. There are reasonable explanations for that fact. For example, if TGF berries were rejected by one buyer, they would be sold as lower quality berries to another buyer who had need for that product. If there was a very high supply, but low demand, at the time the berries were harvested, a lower price may result. However, other than for those exceptions, G&S sold TGF berries for the same price that G&S sold other growers' berries; and due to his long-standing relationship with several chains, G&S often got the very best price in the area. One other price issue (although not largely pertinent to the instant dispute) concerned pre-selling berries by establishing an "ad price" for the product. An ad price was essentially an agreed-upon price well in advance of the actual purchase. This was done in order to allow stores the opportunity to advertise the price of berries in the newspaper or other circulars because the store would know the price well enough in advance. For example, the broker and buyer may agree to a price of $14 per box for berries to be delivered on a date certain. When that date came, the market price might be $12 per box or $16 per box, but the buyer would only pay the ad price ($14 per box). So, some of the TGF berries may have been sold at below USDA Market Price because they were part of an ad price arrangement. Gladney contends she was underpaid for supervising another farm for Grizzaffe. There is no documentation whatsoever as to the agreement between the parties. The farm was approximately 25 acres, which would produce about 2,000 to 2,500 flats of berries to the acre (or 50,000 to 62,500 flats). Gladney maintains she was supposed to receive $.25 a flat for berries produced on that farm as her management fee. No accounting of berries produced on the farm was presented into evidence. Gladney received a check for $10,000 from Grizzaffe to pay the management fee for the farm. Gladney said that $10,000 would be a "low amount" for her work, but did not substantiate that more was actually owed. Gladney protested offsets from her earned fees that related to certain products and materials, specifically fuel and packing materials. However, the bills and receipts presented by Grizzaffe justify the materials based on the number of berries produced and packed by Gladney for sale by Grizzaffe. The offsets appear reasonable and consistent with normal farming practices. G&S accurately and appropriately billed TGF for materials, including pallets, eggshells (small cartons used to ship berries), and fuel. The charges for those materials are applied to and deducted from TGF's profits on the berries delivered to G&S. The last primary point of contention between the parties is whether or not G&S loaned money to TGF and, if so, how much was loaned, the interest rate, and whether the loan was repaid. Again, there is no written loan agreement between the parties. According to Grizzaffe, G&S agreed to lend TGF up to $50,000 during the 2007-2008 growing season at a flat ten percent interest rate. The loan was offered in recognition of the fact that Gladney was just beginning her farming practice and would need some assistance on the front end. G&S expected to recoup its loan as TGF began delivering berries for sale. Gladney maintains that there was no loan to TGF or herself from Grizzaffe. Rather, she states that any checks for other than produce were G&S's payments for the promised irrigation system. G&S issued a number of checks to Gladney identified as "farm advance" or "loan" or "payroll." These checks were issued prior to the first sale of TGF berries by G&S. That is, TGF was not yet entitled to a check from the sale of proceeds at the time the checks were issued. Grizzaffe says the purpose of the checks was to advance money to Gladney so that she would have the funds necessary to rent equipment to prepare the land for planting, to install the sprinkler system, to pay her workers, and to cover her farming costs before proceeds from sales starting coming in. The first check representing sale of TGF berries by G&S was issued to Gladney on February 7, 2008 (although TGF had started delivering berries in November 2007). It is clear that Grizzaffe was providing money to Gladney before money had been earned. Whether it is called an advance or a loan, the net effect is the same. The total amount loaned by Grizzaffe to Gladney was far in excess of the agreed-upon $50,000. As TGF experienced unforeseen start-up expenses, Grizzaffe would write a check to help them meet any shortfall. These checks, which Gladney characterized as payments for the irrigation system, far exceed the cost of that system. The most credible evidence is that Grizzaffe fronted money to Gladney in the amount of $203,717.00. Further, G&S's charges to TGF exactly reflect a ten percent charge for certain checks, clearly evidencing the loan as described by Grizzaffe. Platte River Insurance Company ("Platte River") is a foreign insurance company authorized to do business in Florida. Platt River bonded G&S as required under Section 604.20, Florida Statutes (2008).4 Platte River did not make an appearance or file an answer to the Complaint filed by Petitioner in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services dismissing the Petition of Tonya Gladney, d/b/a Tonya Gladney Farms. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 23rd day of February, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioners, Mark K. Mast and Kirk E. Mast d/b/a Mast Farm, operate a sixty-acre potato farm on Cracker Swamp Road in or near East Palatka, Florida. The 1991 crop year was the first year in which the two brothers had operated their own farm. This activity was a part-time endeavor since the brothers worked full-time as logging contractors for Georgia Pacific Corporation. Respondent, G & G Sales Corporation, a Minnesota corporation licensed to do business in this state, is a dealer (broker) in agricultural products that purchases potatoes from growers throughout the country for resale to various potato chip companies. Its president and vice-president are Loren R. Girsbirger and George Wilkerson, respectively. As an agricultural dealer, respondent is required to obtain a license from and post a surety bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs (Department). In this case, the bond has been posted by respondent, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. The amount of the bond is not of record. In order to start their farming operation, it was necessary for the Mast brothers to secure a loan from the North Florida Production Credit Association. That lending institution had a practice of requiring farmers to secure their loans with contracts for the sale of all or a portion of their crop. That is to say, the lender required a farmer to have a sales contract which equaled the amount of the loan. So that petitioners could meet this requirement, on January 29, 1991, the parties executed a contract wherein petitioners agreed to sell respondent 8,000 bags of Atlantic variety potatoes at an agreed upon price of $5.75 per bag, for a total price of $46,000. The lending institution then agreed to loan petitioners that amount of money. Although the brothers asked that respondent purchase more than 8,000 bags, respondent declined since it had only that contract amount (with chip companies) available. A copy of the contract has been received in evidence as joint exhibit The contract was drafted by respondent and it may be inferred from the evidence that it is a "standard" type of contract used by farmers and dealers in the potato business. The contract contained the following relevant conditions in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6: Buyer assumes that Seller will have sufficient amount of potatoes to cover all contracts, including open market sales. This contract does not restrict these open market sales, but Seller does protect Buyer's amount due. In the event of fire, unauthorized strikes, wars, transportation shortages, Acts of God, or events beyond the control of Seller or Buyer which prevent Seller or Buyer from performance in full or in part of the terms of this agreement, it is agreed that such failure to perform shall not be excused and shall not form the basis for any claim of damage or breach of contract. Seller agrees to seed sufficient acreage to cover the potatoes sold for delivery under this contract and other contracts to all purchasers with whom the Seller has contracted for the delivery of potatoes during the upcoming farm season. If, however, on account of shortages of crops not due to any act within the Seller's control or other causes beyond the control of the Seller, he is unable to deliver the full amount of potatoes called for in this contract, the Buyer will accept a prorated delivery with other buyers of the potatoes covered by similar contracts without any claim for damages against the Seller. Seller will grant Buyer all necessary rights to insure and verify that he is receiving his fair and just pro-rate share. Such rights to include, but not limited to, inspection of all records, books, field reports, shipments, etc. Burden of proof rests with Sellers. Finally, paragraph 11 of the contract provided in part that "the terms of this contract cannot be re-negotiated without the written consent of the Buyer and the Seller." Thus, under the terms of the contract, petitioners were obliged to "have sufficient amount of potatoes to cover all contracts". However, if an Act of God prevented the seller from "deliver(ing) the full amount of potatoes called for in (the) contract", the seller was excused from full performance and could prorate its crop. Under those circumstances, respondent was required to "accept a prorated delivery with other buyers of the potatoes covered by similar contracts." In this case, there were no other buyers of potatoes covered by similar contracts. Finally, except for changes approved in writing by both parties, the terms of the contract could not be changed. Petitioners planted their crop on February 2 and 10, 1991. At that time, the brothers hoped to harvest 16,000 bags of potatoes, or around 267 bags per acre. Although the average yield per acre for Atlantic type potatoes in the area had been between 250 and 270 bags, most growers assume a more conservative yield of around 200 bags per acre to insure that all contractual requirements can be met. Here, however, except for a contract with respondent, petitioners had no other contracts with other dealers or individuals. When the contract was signed in January, the brothers expected to sell the remainder of their crop to other buyers on the open market. In this regard, they entered into an agreement (presumably verbal) with their father, who had co-signed the bank note, to split the net proceeds on all sales over and above that required under the G & G Sales Corporation contract. This latter agreement with the father was not a "similar contract" within the meaning of paragraph 6 of the contract and thus the G & G Sales Corporation contract is found to be the only relevant contract for crop year 1991. On April 23, 1991, a severe thunderstorm swept through a part of Putnam County. The storm was accompanied by high winds and hail and followed a path which ran through the potato farm belt in East Palatka. The Circle S farm, which lies about one-half mile from petitioner's farm, was "devastated" by the storm. Petitioners' farm received high winds, heavy rains and some hail. The extent of damage caused by the storm to petitioners' farm is in dispute, but it is agreed that the storm diminished the size of the crop. As it turned out, petitioners dug only 8,802 bags of potatoes, which still exceeded the amount required under their only contract. After the storm struck, Mark Mast immediately contacted Wilkerson by telephone and advised him that the farm had been hit with hail and asked that Wilkerson and Girsbirger survey the damage. On April 24, 1991, Wilkerson and Girsbirger visited the farm and found it "very wet" and muddy but the leaves on the plants still intact. This level of damage was generally corroborated by various other witnesses. Although the above conditions were present at that time, it was still impossible then for anyone to forecast exactly how the storm impacted the volume and quality of petitioners' crop. Most potato farmers purchase crop insurance prior to each farming season. A farmer has the option of purchasing either 50%, 65% or 75% coverage, although 65% coverage is the most common. This means that a farmer must lose at least 50%, 35% or 25% of his crop due to weather or insects in order to file a claim. The amount of insurance is based on a function of the percent of crop the farmer wishes to insure times the value per hundred weight of the crop. For first year farmers, such as petitioners, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) establishes a designated yield per acre which is based on FCIC's estimate, albeit conservative, of what the average yield should be. In the case of petitioners, who purchased 65% coverage, the FCIC (and insurer) set a designated yield of 184 bags per acre which meant petitioner would have a crop approximating 184 hundred weight per acre. Although petitioners had a crop insurance policy in 1991, they did not file a claim after the April 23 storm since they failed to meet the threshold requirements for coverage. Indeed, the local crop insurance agent visited the farm shortly after the storm and verified there was not enough damage to file a claim. However, he noted that there was excessive water for a few days and some of the leaves on the vines had holes caused by the hail. Between May 4 and 18, 1991, petitioners sold respondent nine loads of potatoes totaling 4,101 bags at a price of $5.75 per bag. During the period from April 30, 1991, through May 18, 1991, they sold ten other loads on the open market to two other buyers. The open market sales totaled 4,701.2 bags. Because potato prices had dramatically increased after the contract was executed, nine of these latter loads were sold at an open market price of $19 per bag while one was sold at a price of $18.50 per bag, for a total of $88,806. Petitioners contend respondent agreed that the above ten loads could be sold on the open market and thus it should not be heard now to complain that it was shorted on the contract. In this regard, the evidence shows that after the storm, which is the time period relevant to this contention, Wilkerson told Mark Mast that he had no problem with petitioners selling any extra potatoes on the open market as long as respondent received its 8,000 bags. Girsbirger also advised the Masts that it was okay to sell ten loads of potatoes on the open market if production was 200 bags per acre. However, he cautioned them to sell no more than four loads on the open market if the yield fell to 180 to 185 bags per acre since the remainder would be necessary to meet the terms of the contract. Thus, it is found that respondent did not agree to the sale of the ten loads on the open market if total production did not exceed 8,000 bags. Around May 3, 1991, Mark Mast approached Wilkerson and asked if respondent would renegotiate the contract price upward. Wilkerson declined to do so. On May 6, Mast sent Wilkerson a notice by registered mail advising him that due to the crop loss, which he estimated to be one-third of the crop, he intended to adjust the contract pursuant to paragraph 6 of the contract and supply only two-thirds of the 8,000 bags. This unilateral offer to modify the contract was never accepted by respondent, and in any event, petitioners failed to supply the amount offered in their May 6 letter. In all, respondent received only 51.3% of its contracted amount of 8,000 bags. Petitioners allocated respondent this amount on the theory they had originally planned to sell one-half of their total anticipated crop of 16,000 bags to respondent, that one-half of the anticipated crop was lost in the storm, and thus respondent should receive only one-half of the remaining crop, or around 4,000 bags. At hearing, petitioners defended this decision by treating the April 23 storm as an Act of God within the meaning of paragraph 6 of the contract. However, reliance on this provision was inappropriate since, despite the effects of the storm, petitioners could still deliver the full amount of potatoes called for in the contract. The testimony is in conflict as to whether petitioners offered respondent more than 4,101 bags during the harvest season. At various times, respondent was offered several "extra" loads at the market price of $19 per bag but declined since it still wanted the contract honored. According to petitioners, they were ready to load a truck on two occasions but respondent failed to send a truck. Respondent denies this assertion. In addition, petitioners claim that a truck arrived late one Sunday afternoon when their farm equipment was inoperable and thus they could not load any potatoes. Conversely, Wilkerson contended that Mark telephoned him on several occasions and told him not to send a truck because Mark was loading for "another contract". Accordingly, it is found that petitioners offered respondent only the 4,101 bags at the contract price but that additional loads were offered at the substantially higher open market price. After receiving the 4,101 bags, respondent presented petitioners a check dated June 17, 1991, in the amount of $4,777.92 as full payment for the 4,101 bags of potatoes. The check carried the notation "The undersigned, upon cashing check, accepts payment in full for attached invoices, with no recourse." It was never cashed by petitioners. Attached to the check was an invoice which calculated the $4,777.92 in the following manner. Respondent first calculated $23,598 by multiplying 4,101 bags times $5.75 per bag and then subtracted $82.08 for "Not Pat dues", an amount not explained but nonetheless unchallenged by petitioners. It then deducted $19,038 from that total for a net amount due of $4,777.92. The latter deduction of $19,038 represented a set-off for damages incurred by respondent in having to buy potatoes elsewhere by virtue of petitioners failing to supply the contracted amount of potatoes. It was calculated by assuming that petitioners would supply 2/3 (or 68%) of its commitment, or 5,440 bags. 1/ Since only 4,104 bags were delivered, this amounted to a shortage of 1,336 bags. Respondent represented, without contradiction, that it had to replace this shortage at the same price which petitioners received for non-contract sales on the open market. Respondent assumed that petitioners sold their potatoes at an open market price of $20, or $14.25 more than the contract price. Thus, it deducted 1,336 x $14.25, or $19,038 from the final payment. In actuality, petitioners sold the bulk of those potatoes at a price of $19 per bag. Thus, respondent's set-off should have been $17,702 rather than $19,038. This amount of set-off ($17,702) is deemed to be reasonable and should be subtracted from the amount owed by respondent to petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services requiring respondent to pay petitioners $5,813.92 within thirty days of date of final order. Otherwise, the surety should be required to pay that amount. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 1992. 1/ For purposes of determining damages, respondent decided that petitioners were entitled to some relief under the contract due to the storm. Accordingly, respondent assumed that it would receive only two-thirds of the contract requirement. APPENDIX Petitioners: 1. Covered in the preliminary statement. 2. Accepted in finding of fact 2. 3-4. Accepted in finding of fact 1. 5. Accepted in finding of fact 2. 6. Accepted in finding of fact 3. 7-8. Accepted in finding of fact 4. 9. Accepted in finding of fact 3. 10. Accepted in finding of fact 5. Accepted in findings of fact 1 and 5. Accepted in finding of fact 6. 13-14. Accepted in finding of fact 7. Accepted in finding of fact 8. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. The remainder has been rejected as being contrary to the more persuasive evidence. Partially accepted in findings of fact 11 and 12. Accepted in finding of fact 11. Accepted in finding of fact 9. 21-22. Accepted in finding of fact 14. Accepted in finding of fact 6. Rejected as being contrary to more persuasive evidence. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6 but this finding does not excuse performance under the contract. See finding of fact 12. Respondent: * Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. The remainder is covered in the preliminary statement. Accepted in finding of fact 1. Accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Accepted in finding of fact 4. Accepted in findings of fact 3 and 5. 6-8. Accepted in finding of fact 7. 9-10. Accepted in finding of fact 10. Accepted in finding of fact 7. Accepted in finding of fact 9. Accepted in finding of fact 14. * Respondent G & G Sales Corporation filed thirteen unnumbered paragraphs containing proposed findings of fact. The paragraphs have been numbered 1-13 by the undersigned for the purpose of making these rulings. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe C. Miller, II P. O. Box 803 Palatka, Florida 32178-0803 Ronald W. Brown, Esquire 66 Cuna Street, Suite B St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License & Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Charles T. Shad, Esquire 601 Blackstone Building East Bay & Market Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (on behalf of St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.) Richard A. Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture & Consumer Affairs The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether the Respondent violated provisions of Section 400.419(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code, more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 10, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sun 'N Lake Towers, is an ACLF located in Sebring, Florida, and is duly licensed for 224 beds. On May 14, 1991, the annual licensure survey of Sun 'N Lake Towers reviewed the facility's records to determine the current census and number of meals per day the facility had contracted to serve to its residents. The amount of non-perishable food that would be required to feed the facility's residents two meals per day for seven days was calculated. The supply of food in storage was deficient for every food group by about 50% of the necessary amount of food. A non-perishable food supply protects the residents in the event of a tornado, hurricane, or other disaster. Some of the residents at Respondent's facility were on physician ordered therapeutic diets. One resident, P.M., was on a diabetic diet, but was served orange juice. Orange juice is high in fructose and is not appropriate for such a diet. Tomato juice would have been appropriate, but it was not observed on hand at the facility. Another resident who was on a diabetic diet received a sugary dessert in violation of the physician's order. Another resident on a diabetic diet, M.F., received only one serving of bread and no milk instead of two servings of each group as ordered by the physician. Failure to comply with a physician ordered diabetic diet could result in very serious health problems for a patient. Resident, E.N., who was on a physician ordered 1200 calorie per day diet, received a 4 to 5 ounce serving of meat instead of the two ounce serving ordered by the physician. The facility served a boxed stuffing which was high in sodium content to six residents who were on physician ordered low sodium diets. The facility had no system in place to ensure that information regarding residents' therapeutic diets was transmitted to the food service staff, and the food service staff had no system in place to substitute a modified menu into the meal pattern when required. The food at Sun 'N Lake Towers is otherwise tasty and served in bountiful amounts. An advertisement for Sun 'N Lake Towers was placed the March 1991 edition of Senior Scene Magazine. The advertisement failed to state whether the facility was affiliated with any religious organization. Sun 'N Lake Towers' more recent advertisement now contains the requisite affirmative disclosure. Although the facility kept resident property in trust, it failed to provide a quarterly statements to the residents. The deficiencies cited following the May 14, 1991 visit were also cited during the licensure survey of April 24, 1990.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of all four citations, and that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order imposing a fine of $850.00 ($100 suspended) upon the Respondent, Sun 'N Lake Towers. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of January, 1993, 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 25th day of January, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sold watermelons to Respondent in June, 1982, for a net price due grower of $5,907.15. The buyer paid the grower $4,883.62 leaving a balance owed of $1,023.53. During the same period the grower delivered to the buyer some 692 bushels of cucumbers. Buyer advanced $1,200 to the grower on May 7, 11, and 14, 1982. The Comchecks (Exhibit 4) show $407.00, $607, and $407 on each of those dates; however, Exhibit 5 shows $400 was advanced by each check, Neither party was prepared to present evidence that the charges contained on Exhibit 5 were customary and proper in the brokerage of agricultural products business, and both parties agreed that the cucumber dispute should he referred to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for investigation as the watermelon dispute had been.
The Issue Whether Respondent owes Petitioner $2,377.20 as alleged in the complaint filed by Petitioner in July 1997.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Bigham Hide Company, Inc. (Petitioner), is a watermelon grower in Coleman and Lake Panasoffkee, Florida. Respondent, Florida-Georgia Produce, Inc. (Respondent), is a licensed dealer in agricultural products having been issued License Number 7666 by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). Respondent has posted a bond in the amount of $30,000.00 written by Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company, as surety, to assure proper accounting and payment to producers such as Petitioner. In a complaint filed with the Department in July 1997, Petitioner alleged that he entered into an agreement with Bobby Patton (Patton) on behalf of Respondent to sell one truckload of "pee wee" watermelons. Under that agreement, Respondent agreed to pay seven cents per pound for the watermelons, and it would advance Petitioner $700.00 to cover the labor costs associated with loading the truck. The remainder would be paid upon final delivery. The complaint goes on to allege that Petitioner subsequently learned that there was "some problem" with the delivered produce. After Respondent inspected Petitioner's field to verify the quality of the crop, Petitioner was told that Respondent would "fight the fight" to get the shipment accepted. Since that time, however, the complaint alleges that Petitioner did not receive payment, an accounting of the transaction, an inspection report, or any further explanation. Accordingly, Petitioner filed this complaint seeking $3,077.20, less the $700.00 advance, or a total of $2,377.20. In its answer, Respondent has alleged that it actually received a truckload of "old diseased watermelons that had been lying in the field or on [the] field truck for a week," and the receiver refused to accept the load. Since it received nothing for the shipment, Respondent contends it is owed $700.00 for the money advanced to Petitioner. The parties agree that in late May 1997, Petitioner was contacted by Bobby Patton, who was representing Respondent, regarding the sale of small size watermelons. Patton offered to buy one truckload of "pee wee" watermelons at a price of seven cents per pound, to be paid after delivery to the receiver. Patton also agreed to advance Petitioner $700.00 to cover his loading costs. Petitioner agreed to these terms, and the truck was loaded from his field on June 3, 1997. The net weight of the loaded produce was 43,960 pounds. The vehicle's tag number was recorded on the loading slip as "AH 39099" from the province of Quebec, Canada. There is no evidence that the crop was diseased when it was loaded, or that it had been picked and lying in the field for several days before being loaded, as suggested in Respondent's answer to the complaint. The shipment was destined for Ontario, Canada. On or about June 5, 1997, the product was delivered to the customer, Direct Produce, Inc., in Etobicoke, Ontario. Because of a perceived lack of quality, the buyer refused to accept the load. Respondent immediately requested a government inspection which was performed on June 6, 1997. The results of that inspection are found in Respondent's Exhibit 3. It reveals that 1 percent of the load was decayed, 3 percent were bruised, 6 percent had Anthrocnose (belly rot), and 75 percent had "yellow internal discolouration." In addition, a composite sample reflected that 20 percent had "Whitish Stracked Flesh" while 5 percent had "Hollow Heart." In other words, virtually the entire shipment was tainted with defects or disease. The report also reflected that the net weight of the shipment was 44,500 pounds, and the tag number of the vehicle was "ALP 390999." The weight and tag number were slightly different from those recorded on the loading slip at Petitioner's field. After learning of the results of the inspection, Respondent's president, James B. Oglesby, immediately contacted Petitioner's president, Greg Bigham, and requested an inspection of Bigham's field to verify the quality of watermelons. During the inspection, Oglesby did not find any signs of belly rot or other problems similar to those noted in the government inspection. If there had been any incidence of belly rot in Petitioner's field, it would have been present in other unpicked watermelons. At the end of his inspection, Oglesby told Petitioner that he would "fight the fight" to get the shipment delivered and sold. Oglesby eventually found a buyer who would accept the shipment as feed for cattle. The buyer agreed to pay the freight charges for hauling the watermelons to Canada but nothing more. Therefore, Respondent was not paid for the load. Petitioner was led to believe that he would receive payment and paperwork, including the inspection report, within a few days. When he did not receive any documentation, payment, or further explanation within a reasonable period of time, he filed this complaint. It would be highly unlikely that a farmer would have one completely bad load from a field without the same problems being present in other loads shipped from the field at the same time. Petitioner presented uncontroverted testimony that no other shipments from that field during the same time period were rejected or had similar problems. In addition, it was established that poor ventilation on the truck, or leaving the loaded truck unprotected in the sun, could be causes of the crop being spoiled or damaged before it was delivered to Canada. Finally, at hearing, Respondent suggested that Bigham may have shown him a different field than the one from which his load was picked. However, this assertion has been rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs enter a final order determining that Respondent owes Petitioner $2,377.20. In the event payment is not timely made, the surety should be responsible for the indebtedness. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day 6th of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Terry T. Neal, Esquire Post Office Box 490327 Leesburge, Florida 34749-0327 James B. Oglesby Post Office Box 6214 Lakeland, Florida 33807 Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company 4311 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1973, Wesnofske Farms, Inc., of Crescent City, Florida, entered into an agreement with Richard Weller of Warehouse Point, Connecticut, as receiver and Morgan Produce, Inc., of Lincoln, Delaware, as agent/Broker for the receiver. Wesnofske agreed to deliver 10,000 hundredweight of potatoes at an agreed price of $4.10 per hundredweight f.o.b. Wesnofske Farms in Crescent City, Florida. The contract provided, inter alia, that the deliveries were to be prorated over or about seven week harvest period which began at the time of digging or about April 15, 1978, subject, of course, to weather, digging conditions and crop maturity. The contract also provided that in the event of crop failure due to drought, etc., or any act of God, the contract was to be probated in accordance with acreage yield, etc. (See Exhibit A). William B. Morgan, President of Morgan Produce, Inc. served as the broker for the parties. Mr. Morgan testified that due to the extended cold weather season, digging commenced on or about May 3, 1978. On that date, May 3, 1978, Morgan telephoned Respondent, Richard Weller, and advised him that the first deliveries were ready and inquired of Weller when his first trucks would be arriving to accept delivery. Weller indicated that marketing conditions extant at the time forced him to decline delivery of potatoes and instructed Morgan to contact Mr. Jack Rubin and offer his deliveries to him. Morgan contacted Rubin and offered the potatoes for $6.80 per hundredweight, whereupon Rubin advised that he had at that time more contracts at lower price that he could handle. Weller was advised of Rubin's response and instructed Morgan to sell his deliveries to the best of his ability on the open market. Beginning on May 6, 1978, Morgan began selling potatoes from the Weller contract to various co-ops and distributors at a profit through approximately May 16, 1978, when there existed a glut in the potato market. Weller was advised by Morgan that he would not be able to continue showing him a profit on his contract if the then present market conditions continued. Weller was advised by Morgan that the potatoes were presently bringing approximately $3.75 per hundredweight to the open market, which, of course, would represent a loss to him of 35 cents per hundred pounds. At that time, it appeared that the depressed market conditions would continue throughout the digging season and, this being the first contract that Petitioner had entered with Respondent, Morgan contacted Petitioner's farm manager, Joseph Froehlich. Morgan and Froehlich discussed the matter and decided that it would be advantageous to release Respondent from his contractual obligations with no loss to him and to credit Respondent's account for all profits accrued as of that date. According to Morgan, Weller agreed and was pleased with this proposal of being rid of the contractual obligations due to the depressed market conditions. From the period May 6, 1978, through June 1, 1978, when Weller was released from his, contract, Weller had earned a net profit of approximately $1,900 (See Exhibit B). During the period of May 16 through May 26, 1978, Morgan sold approximately 921,960 hundredweights at $3.75 per hundredweight, which had been grown for Richard Weller and Orlowski Produce Company, another contracting entity (See Exhibit C). However, on or about May 18, 1978, the market conditions turned around due to low acreage yields of area farms which caused a potato shortage with a resultant rise in market prices. At that time, Weller contacted Morgan and demanded a load of potatoes allegedly due on his contract on May 18, 1978. Morgan discussed the matter with farm manager Froehlich, and it was agreed that Petitioner would provide deliveries to Respondent from purchases of other area farms although Petitioner was of the opinion that it was not obligated to do so, inasmuch as Respondent had been released when market conditions were depressed. Deliveries to Weller resumed on May 18, 1978, and continued through June 7, 1978. From the period June 6 through June 8, 1978, Petitioner was unable to provide shipments from its supplies and, therefore, purchased on the open market, three shipments for the Weller contract at a price of $7.85 per hundred pounds. Based on these bulk loads purchased on the open market, the difference between the contract price and the open market price resulted in a deficiency of approximately $4,865.25 which was charged to Richard Weller's account when an invoice was forwarded him pursuant to contract. On June 26, 1978, Weller was invoiced for $32,202.41, of which amount Weller paid $27,337.16 on July 15, 1978, pursuant to the $4.18 per hundredweight contracted price for all deliveries (See Exhibit E). Joseph Froehlich testified that due to the inclement weather conditions, the late acreage yields were down to approximately 40 hundred pounds per acre, which was substantially less than the other acreage had yielded. Froehlich testified that had Respondent accepted deliveries of potatoes when offered during the early digging season, his contractual allotment could have been fulfilled; however, he opted to be released at a time when market conditions were poor. Thus, Froehlich contends, that Petitioner was not obligated to purchase potatoes on the open market for Weller and sustain a loss when market conditions dictated higher prices. This was so Froehlich contends, first of all because Respondent failed to accept delivery of the potatoes when they were available to him pursuant to the terms of the contract and, secondly, inasmuch as Respondent was relieved from the terms and obligations of the contract when market conditions were poor. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner's representative, Morgan, indicated that the Wesnofskes were not negotiating the partial tender of payment by Respondent in the amount of $27,337.16 until the administrative hearing herein was completed. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services uphold the claim of the Petitioner, Wesnofske Farms, Inc., in the amount of $32,202.41, plus normal interest accruing from July 15, 1978, as provided in the contract, plus a reasonable amount for costs and fees for preparation of this administrative claim. Based upon the testimony offered during the course of the hearing, a reasonable amount appears to be approximately $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to payment from Respondent for sod that it sold.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner grows sod and sells it to persons who are in the business of installing sod. Respondent installs sod for its customers, such as homeowners, businesses, and schools. Both parties are experienced in the sod business, although Respondent has more experience than Petitioner with Floratam sod. Respondent is a large user of sod. Petitioner sold from 3-6 loads daily to Respondent from July to October, 1993. Until the loads in question, there were no problems, and Respondent paid for the sod. On October 5, 1993, Petitioner sold Respondent 18 pallets of Floratam sod. At the agreed-upon rate of 6 cents per square foot, the price of this sod was $432. The next day, Petitioner sold Respondent 36 pallets of Floratam Sod for $864. On October 11, Petitioner sold Respondent 34 pallets for $816. The next day, Petitioner sold Respondent 18 pallets for $432. And on October 14, Petitioner sold Respondent 18 pallets for $432. The total price of the Floratam sod sold to Respondent was thus $2976. For each sale, Petitioner cut the sod and loaded it on the truck of an independent contractor hired by Respondent to transport the sod to the customer's site for installation. For each load, the driver signed an invoice indicating the amount of sod and stating: Your signature acknowledges acceptance. Any claims must be made within 24 hours of delivery or pick up. A 1.5 percent (18 percent per annual) service charge will be added to all accounts 30 days past the invoice date. In the event it is necessary to turn the invoice over for collection or the same has to be collected upon demand of an attorney[,] purchaser agrees to pay all attorney's fees and costs for such collection. The sod was in below-average condition. Petitioner agreed to sell it, and Respondent agreed to buy it, in "as is" condition. The sole warranty attaching to the sod was that Respondent could assert a claim against Petitioner if the claim was asserted within 24 hours of pick up. Sod harvested in early October has undergone the stress of summer weather, in which heat and moisture can damage the grass and leave it in weakened condition. There was little sod left in the area, Respondent's demand for sod due to contractual commitments was great, and Respondent was left with few options but to try to use Petitioner's sod. The price paid by Respondent was somewhat reduced to reflect the below-average condition of the sod. Several factors militate against Respondent's claim that the sod was of such poor quality as to warrant cancellation of the invoiced amounts. First, Respondent did not timely assert a claim against the sod. Respondent did not assert a claim within the 24 hours set forth in the invoices. More important, Respondent ignored subsequent billings for the sod and did not complain about the sod until Petitioner's president spoke with Respondent's president and demanded payment. This conversation took place about 70-80 days after the sales. Other important factors undercutting Respondent's defense are the satisfaction of other purchasers of sod in the same time period and the questionable cultivation practices of some of Respondent's customers. Several persons bought Floratam sod from Petitioner in late September and early October. In most cases acknowledging that the sod was in below-average condition, these purchasers reported that they knew that the sod was purchased in "as is" condition and that, with appropriate irrigation and fertilizing, the sod was successfully established in the customers' property. The record suggests that the some of Respondent's customers, including a major institutional customer, may not have been as careful in maintaining the newly installed sod that was already in somewhat stressed condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding Respondent liable for the sum of $2976, plus interest at 18 percent annually, and, if Respondent does not pay said amount, ordering the surety to pay said amount, up to the amount of the bond. ENTERED on April 20, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on April 20, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-8: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3-6: rejected as subordinate. 7-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as subordinate. 10-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: rejected as subordinate. 16-22: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 23: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence to the extent of implication that Respondent initiated the call to express his concerns about the sod quality. 24-26: rejected as subordinate. 27: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 28-30: rejected as subordinate. 31: [omitted from proposed recommended order]. 32: rejected as irrelevant given "as is" nature of subject transaction, as well as limitation of this remedy to sod against which timely claims are made. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Attorney Kristy C. Shaffer P.O. Drawer 1820 LaBelle, FL 33935 John Charles Coleman Coleman & Coleman 2300 McGregor Blvd. Ft. Myers, FL 33901 Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. Legal Department 136 North Third St. Hamilton, OH 45025
