The Issue Whether or not Petitioner (complainant) is entitled to recover $1,340.50 or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and Respondent surety company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a grower of watermelons and qualifies as a "producer" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. is listed as surety for Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. The amount and period of the bond have not been established. The time material to the amended complaint is June, 1994. Two or three weeks before Petitioner's melons were ready for harvest, Steve Helms personally came to Petitioner's home and requested to ship Petitioner's melons for ultimate retail sale. Petitioner requested to be paid "up front." Mr. Helms would not agree to pay all the money "up front" but agreed to pay some. He also agreed to pay within 14 days of the first shipment. Petitioner had had a bad experience two years previously, so he got Mr. Helms to promise to "clean up" his field. This expression is subject to some interpretation, and although Petitioner initially stated that the agreement was for Respondent broker-shipper to buy all his melons regardless of condition, Petitioner later modified his statement to say that Mr. Helms only promised not to take the best melons and leave the rest. Harvesting began May 15, 1994. Until June 10, 1994, Petitioner's usual contact with Respondent broker- shipper was Frank Favuzza, who oversaw all weighing and loading and assessed the Petitioner's melons on behalf of Respondent broker-shipper. On June 10, 1994, Mr. Helms was again personally in the field. Petitioner told Mr. Helms that he had to get the remainder of the melons off the field by Sunday, otherwise the heat would ruin them. Mr. Helms said he would wait until Monday. Petitioner believes that if the melons had been harvested by Sunday, June 12, 1994, three truckloads could have been harvested. On Monday, less than a full truckload was in good enough condition to be loaded onto a truck. A lot of melons were going bad and were left in the field to rot. On Tuesday, June 14, 1994, Petitioner's melons were weighed at Romeo, Florida and the poundage established at 29,330 pounds. Frank Favuzza estimated to Petitioner that his melons would only bring $.04/lb. From this conversation, related by Petitioner, it may be clearly inferred that Petitioner knew he would not be paid until after Respondent broker-shipper received payment from the ultimate retailer at the other end of the transaction. Petitioner's amended complaint alleged the amounts due as follows: "On June 1, 1994, #92111, 700 lbs. at $.07 equals $49.00, not $490.00; June 3, 1994, #92117, 900 lbs. at $.07 equals $63.00, not $630.00; and June 3, 1994, #92120, 790 lbs. at $.07 equals $55.30, not $553.00. Therefore Item (12) Complaint Total is amended to $1,340.00." The amendments did not alter the original claim for 6-14-94, invoice 92157 for 29,330 lbs. of melons at $.04 for $1,173.20. There was no claim for the melons that rotted in Petitioner's field. Weight tickets and Respondent's corresponding broker-shipper's bills of lading were admitted in evidence. These showed the following amounts were received by Respondent broker-shipper: 6/1/94 INVOICE 92111 46,020 net weight melons 6/3/94 INVOICE 92117 45,580 net weight melons 6/3/94 INVOICE 92120 44,720 net weight melons 6/14/94 INVOICE 92157 29,330 net weight melons Petitioner testified, without refutation, that he was present at each weighing and that he had agreed to take $.07 per pound on all loads except for the June 14, 1994 load for which he was claiming $.04 per pound. The bills of lading support Petitioner's testimony as to the price per pound. The bills of lading also clearly show that the price per pound was "to farm minus labor." This notation means that the net amount to be paid Petitioner by Respondent was subject to a prior deduction for labor, but it cannot reasonably be inferred to include a deduction for shipping. Petitioner's last load of 29,330 lbs. of melons weighed on June 14, 1994 was less than a full truckload, so Respondent added melons from another farm to that truck to make up a full load. Respondent broker-shipper did not pay Petitioner for 700 pounds of the June 1, 1994, invoice 92111 truckload; for 900 pounds of the first June 3, 1994 invoice 92117 truckload; for 790 pounds of the second June 3, 1994 invoice 92120 truckload; or for any (29,330 pounds) of the June 14, 1994 invoice 92157 truckload, upon grounds that those melons were not saleable at their destination. Petitioner put in evidence Exhibit P-3 which is an accounting Respondent had sent him. It shows that Respondent broker-shipper had deducted $690.30 for labor on invoice 92111 and claimed 700 pounds could not be sold; had deducted $683.70 for labor on invoice 92117 and claimed 900 pounds could not be sold; had deducted $670.80 for labor on invoice 92120 and claimed 790 pounds could not be sold; and had paid Petitioner nothing on a June 14, 1994 truckload, invoice 92159. Invoice 92157, which corresponds to Petitioner's June 14, 1994 partial truckload of 29,330 pounds of melons, is not listed or otherwise explained in the exhibit. The exhibit is conclusionary and inexplicably is dated 1993. There is no back-up evidence to support Respondent's making these deductions. No inspection certificate or labor charges are in evidence. Petitioner's initial complaint, which he put in evidence as P-1, constitutes an admission by him. In the complaint, Petitioner contended (1) that he was selling "direct" to Respondent broker-shipper; (2) that he was selling "f.o.b."; and (3) that he was selling "Fob shipping point excectance (sic) after final inspection." Petitioner also stated therein that he was given an inspection sheet showing 46,310 lbs. of watermelons had failed inspection and he did not feel the melons that failed inspection were his melons because Frank Favuzza approved of all melons loaded from Petitioner's field and the inspection sheet did not say that the bad melons were Petitioner's melons. Somewhat contrariwise, Petitioner testified at formal hearing that he had asked Respondent broker-shipper for a government inspection certificate showing that his melons were bad and never got it. From the credible evidence as a whole, it is inferred that Petitioner sold his watermelons on the June 14, 1994 truckload at $.04 per pound contingent upon the melons arriving at their ultimate destination in saleable condition per a federal inspection. It is further inferred that the prior three loads at issue also were sold contingent upon their arriving in saleable condition. The evidence as a whole also supports a finding that Petitioner's melons left the weigh station in a condition capable of being sold for the respective prices agreed upon between Petitioner and Respondent broker-shipper. Any deterioration of melons between June 10, 1994 when Petitioner requested that the broker-shipper take the last load and June 14, 1994 when the last load actually was weighed and shipped is attributable to Respondent broker-shipper, but that fact is not significant since the lesser rate of $.04/lb. was agreed upon prior to shipping and after Respondent broker-shipper had seen and approved the loaded melons. Petitioner's foregoing evidence of delivering saleable quality melons to Respondent broker-shipper is unrefuted. The presumption is thereby created that but for some failure of Respondent broker-shipper, the melons would have arrived at their ultimate destination in saleable condition. There is no evidence of record to support Respondent's deductions for "labor," or for melons which allegedly could not be sold upon delivery at the ultimate destination. Petitioner moved ore tenus to further amend his complaint to include a prayer for reimbursement for the cost of the melons which rotted in his field and became unsaleable between June 10 and June 14, 1994 due to Respondent broker-shipper's delay in loading and to assert a claim for interest on the $1,340.50 claim. This motion was denied as too late.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order awarding Petitioner $1,340.50, and binding Respondents to pay the full amount of $1,340.50, which in Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.'s case shall be only to the extent of its bond. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of June, 1995, 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 2nd day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 94-6189A The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-2 Accepted. Rejected as unnecessary Rejected as subordinate and mere argumentation. 5-6 Rejected as mere argumentation. Rejected as these were not the dates testified. Rejected as mere argumentation. Respondent Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc.'s PFOF: 1 Accepted. 2-4 Rejected as not proven. Accepted as to the June 10-14, 1994 load. Rejected as not proven. Not proven in whole. Covered to the extent proven. While one inference might be that a different invoice number was assigned to the combined load, that is not the only reasonable inference based on the evidence submitted. Likewise, although Petitioner apparently got some inspection certificate, that certificate is not in evidence. There is no record evidence as to what it covered. It is not reasonable to infer or guess that it covered four loads on four trucks on three dates or that there is any way to calculate from it that the only bad melons were Petitioner's melons and not those mixed in from another farm on June 14, 1994. See FOF 19-20. 8-15 Rejected as not proven. Respondent Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.'s PFOF: None filed COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Favuzza, President Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. Post Office Box 1682 Auburndale, Florida 33823 Tom Morton Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. Post Office Box 94-5010 Maitland, Florida 32794-5010 L. C. Stevenson 333 NW 46th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34482 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Golden Gem Growers, Inc. (Golden Gem), owes Petitioner the money alleged in the Amended Complaint based on two written contracts between Petitioner and Golden Gem.
Findings Of Fact During the citrus growing season of 2000-2001, Golden Gem was a citrus fruit dealer defined in Subsection 601.03(8) and was licensed and bonded in accordance with Chapter 601. Golden Gem operated a packinghouse in Alturas, Florida, and regularly purchased citrus fruit for sale in the fresh fruit market. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) is the surety on the fruit dealer's bond issued to Golden Gem for the 2000-2001 season. On September 14, 2000, Petitioner and Golden Gem entered into Contract No. AS-7199. The contract provided, in relevant part, that Petitioner was to deliver Valencia oranges and other citrus fruit to Golden Gem and that Golden Gem was to handle, pack, ship, sell, and market the fresh fruit provided by Petitioner. On May 9, 2001, Petitioner and Golden Gem entered into Contract No. AS-7208. The contract provided, in relevant part, that Petitioner was to deliver Valencia oranges to Golden Gem and that Golden Gem was to handle, pack, ship, sell, and market the fresh fruit provided by Petitioner. Contracts AS-7199 and AS-7208 require Golden Gem to detail and account for all the Valencia oranges delivered by Petitioner and packed by Golden Gem. Each contract provides for attorney's fees to the prevailing party. Petitioner delivered 115,740 boxes of Valencia oranges to Golden Gem and Golden Gem processed all 115,740 boxes. Golden Gem packed the oranges into 182,650 cartons but accounted to Petitioner for only 159,731 cartons. Golden Gem collected $1,172,715.40 for 159,731 cartons of Petitioner's Valencia oranges. Golden Gem was entitled to deduct expenses for packing, shipping, and handling in the total amount of $630,475.10. Golden Gem owed a net payment to Petitioner of $542,240.30. Golden Gem paid $518,284.82 to Petitioner. The balance owed for the fruit accounted for by Golden Gem is $23,955.48. Golden Gem owes Petitioner an additional $85,757.36 for the proceeds of an additional 22,919 cartons of Valencia oranges for which Golden Gem has not accounted to Petitioner. The amount due is net after adjusting the gross price for handling charges that Golden Gem is entitled to under the terms of the contracts. Golden Gem owes Petitioner a total amount of $109,712.84 for Valencia oranges that Petitioner delivered to Golden Gem in the 2000-2001 shipping season. Petitioner is the prevailing party. Petitioner incurred reasonable attorney's fees of $10,570.00 and costs of $398.24.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order adopting the findings and conclusions in this Recommended Order and requiring Respondents to pay Petitioner the sum of $109,712.84. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 25th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Alves Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Post Office Box 87 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Golden Gem Growers, Inc. Post Office Drawer 9 Umatilla, Florida 32784 Maggie Evans, Esquire 131 Waterman Avenue Mount Dora, Florida 32757 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 500 Third Street, Northwest Post Office Box 1072 Winter Haven, Florida 33882-1072 Brandon J. Rafool, Esquire Post Office Box 7286 Winter Haven, Florida 33883-7286 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture 407 South Calhoun Street Mayo Building, Mail Stop 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent, as a licensed citrus fruit dealer, breached an agreement with Petitioner relating to the purchase of citrus fruit during the 1993-1994 citrus shipping season; and further whether the breach of such agreement constitutes a violation of the Florida Citrus Code for which the proceeds of the citrus fruit dealer's bond executed by Co-Respondent should be paid to Petititioner pursuant to Section 601.66, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, BBC & F Corporation, Inc., is a Florida corporation located in Zolfo Springs, Florida, which is in the business of buying and selling citrus fruit. Charles J. "Chuck" Young is the vice-president and a director of Petitioner. Respondent, Jim Robinette, is a citrus fruit dealer with an office in Lakeland, Florida, who was licensed during the 1993-1994 citrus shipping season by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs. Co-Respondent, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, is a surety company qualified to do business in Florida, which pursuant to Section 601.61, Florida statutes, executed Respondent's citrus fruit dealer's bond for the 1993-1994 citrus shipping season in the amount of $5,000.00. On or about March 1, 1994, Petitioner, by and through its director and representative, Charles J. "Chuck" Young, entered into an oral contract with Respondent for the sale and delivery of certain citrus fruit from Petitioner's grove in Dundee, Florida. At that time, Respondent had made a prior agreement with the Redi-Made Foods Corporation to supply citrus fruit to Redi-Made's facility in Tampa, Florida. Specifically, the contract between Petitioner and Respondent provided for the purchase of valencia oranges to be used as salad fruit. The fruit was to be delivered by Petitioner to Redi-Made's facility in Tampa, Florida. The initial terms of the contract provided for a purchase price of $10 per box for fruit delivered to Redi-Made. Of the $10 contract price, $7 was for the grower (Petitioner), $1.90 was to cover the harvesting costs, $.25 was a brokerage fee paid to James Porter of Redi-Made, and $.85 was for Respondent. The first few loads were delivered to Redi-Made and paid for at the contract price of $10 per box. Subsequent to the delivery of the initial few loads, the terms of the contract were amended to incorporate a deduction of $.20 per box of fruit delivered for the purpose of expediting the processing of the payments from Redi-Made. The Petitioner and Respondent agreed to share equally this reduction from the original price. Accordingly, under the amended terms of the contract, Petitioner would receive $6.90 per box delivered, the harvesting costs remained at $1.90 per box delivered, the payment to James Porter remained at $.25 per box delivered, and the Respondent would receive $.75 per box delivered. In accordance with the terms of the amended contract, Petitioner during March of 1994, delivered six loads of valencia oranges totalling 2210 boxes to Redi-Made for which payment has not been made by Respondent. Under the terms of the amended contract, Petitioner is owed $15,249 for the fruit delivered. In addition, Petitioner paid for the harvesting costs of the fruit, for which under the terms of the amended contract, Petitioner is owed $4,199. Respondent was paid by Redi-Made for three of the six loads. These loads are evidenced by trip tickets 70144, 70146 and 82960, and show that 930 boxes of fruit were delivered by Petitioner to Redi-Made; however, Redi-Made paid Respondent for only 890 boxes of this fruit, and did not pay Respondent for the remainder of the 2210 boxes of fruit delivered by Petitioner. There is an ongoing dispute between Respondent and Redi-Made regarding Redi-Made's failure to make payment for the remainder of the fruit; however, resolution of the Respondent's dispute with Redi-Made is independent of, and does not affect the obligations of the Respondent with respect to Respondent's contract with Petitioner.
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 adjudicating that the amount of indebtedness owed to Petitioner from Respondent is $19,488.00, that Respondent shall have thirty (30) days in which to satisfy such indebtedness, and that upon failure of the Respondent to make satisfaction of this claim, the proceeds of the citrus fruit dealer's bond executed by Co-Respondent shall be distributed to Petitioner. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of May, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 9th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX Petitioner's Findings 1.-3. Adopted and Incorporated COPIES FURNISHED: Commissioner Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, P1-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Allan L. Casey, Esquire Post Office Box 7146 Winter Haven, Florida 33883-7146 Jim Robinette 2025 Sylvester Road, Suite J4 Lakeland, Florida 33803
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Triple M Packing, Inc. (Triple M) is in the business of selling produce, particularly tomatoes from its principal business address of Post Office Box 1358, Quincy, Florida. The Respondent, Fair Chester Tomato Packers, Inc. (Fair Chester), is primarily engaged in the business of packaging, distributing and brokering tomatoes in the New York City metropolitan area. It purchases produce from various sellers around the country in tomato-producing areas for resale at markets in the New York City area. Since it is a licensed agricultural dealer, the Respondent is required under the pertinent provisions of Chapter 604, Florida Statutes, to file a surety bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department), designed to guarantee payment of any indebtedness to persons selling agricultural products to the bonded dealer to whom the dealer fails to make accounting and payment. Fair Chester has thus obtained a 50,000 surety bond which is underwritten by its Co-Respondent, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (Hartford). During the 1984 growing season, the Petitioner sold certain shipments of tomatoes to the Respondent for a price of $12,276. Thereafter, curing middle-to-late 1984, the Respondent Fair Chester, found itself in straitened financial circumstances such that it was unable to pay its various trade creditors, including the Petitioner. In view of this, various creditors at the behest of a lawyer retained by Fair Chester, eventually entered into a composition agreement, whereby the unsecured trade creditors agreed to settle, release and discharge in full their claims against Fair Chester on the condition that each creditor signing that agreement be paid thirty-three and one-third percent of its claim. It was determined that the composition agreement would be operative if the trade creditors representing 95 percent or more in dollar amount of all unsecured debts accepted the terms and provisions of that composition agreement on or before November 13, 1984. All the Respondent's unsecured trade creditors were contacted and ultimately those representing more than 95 percent of the outstanding creditor claims against Respondent accepted the terms and provisions of the composition agreement by the deadline. A document indicating acceptance by the Petitioner was signed by one Robert Elliott, purportedly on behalf of the Petitioner, Triple M Packing, Inc. In this connection, by letter of November 13, 1984 (Respondent's Exhibit 4) Attorney Howard of the firm of Glass and Howard, representing the Respondent, wrote each trade creditor advising them that the required acceptance by 95 percent of the creditors had been achieved, including the acceptance of the agreement signed and stamped "received November 8, 1984" by Robert Elliott, sales manager of Triple M. In conjunction with its letter of November 13, 1984, Glass and Howard transmitted Fair Chester's check for one-third of the indebtedness due Triple M or $4,092. The Petitioner's principal officer, its president, Kent Manley, who testified at hearing, acknowledged that he received that letter and check, but he retained it without depositing it or otherwise negotiating it. In the meantime, on October 29, 1984 a complaint was executed and filed by Triple M Packing, Inc. by its president, Kent Manley, alleging that $12,276 worth of tomatoes had been sold to Respondent on June 13, 1984 and that payment had not been received. The purported acceptance of the composition agreement executed by Robert Elliott, sales manager, was not executed until November 8, 1984 and the check for $4,092 in partial payment of the Triple M claim was not posted until November 13, 1984. Mr. Manley's testimony was unrefuted and established that indeed Mr. Elliott was a commissioned salesman for Triple M, was not an officer or director of the company and had no authority to bind the company by his execution of the composition of creditors agreement. Mr. Manley acted in a manner consistent with Elliott's status as a commissioned salesman without authority to bind the Petitioner corporation since, upon his receipt of the "one- third settlement" check with its accompanying letter, he did not negotiate it, but rather pursued his complaint before the Department. In fact, in response to the Department's letter of December 20, 1984 inquiring why the complaint was being prosecuted in view of the purported settlement agreement, Mr. Manley on behalf of Triple M Packing, Inc. by letter of December 28, 1984, responded to Mr. Bissett, of the Department, that he continued to hold the check and was not accepting it as a final settlement. Thus, in view of the fact that the complaint was filed and served before notice that 95 percent of the creditors had entered into the composition agreement and never withdrawn, in view of the fact that on the face of the complaint Robert C. Elliott is represented as a salesman indeed, for an entity known as "Garguilo, Inc.," and in view of the fact that Mr. Manley as president of Triple M, retained the check without negotiating it and availing himself of its proceeds, rather indicating to the Department his wish to pursue the complaint without accepting the check as settlement, it has not been established that the Respondent, Fair Chester, was ever the recipient of any representation by Manley, or any other officer or director of the Petitioner corporation, that it would accept and enter into the above-referenced composition of creditors agreement. It was not proven that Triple M Packing, Inc. nor Mr. Manley or any other officer and director either signed or executed the composition agreement or authorized its execution by Robert C. Elliott. Respondent's position that Mr. Manley and Triple M acquiesced in the execution of the settlement agreement by Elliott and the payment of the one-third settlement amount by the subject check has not been established, especially in view of the fact that the complaint was filed after Attorney Howard notified Triple M of Respondent's settlement offer and prior to notice to Triple M that the settlement agreement had been consummated by 95 percent of the creditors and prior to the sending of the subject check to Triple M. Mr. Manley then within a reasonable time thereafter, on December 28, 1984, affirmed his earlier position that the entire indebtedness was due and that the settlement had not been accepted.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That Fair Chester Tomato Packers, Inc. pay Triple M Packing Company, Inc. $12,276. In the event that principal fails to or is unable to pay that indebtedness, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company should pay that amount out of the surety bond posted with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Kent Manley, Jr. Post Office Box 1358 Quincy, Florida 32351 P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 16th day of September, Arthur Slavin, Esquire BLUM, HAIMOFF, GERSEN, LIPSON, GARLEY & NIEDERGANG 270 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joe W. Kight Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =========================================================== ======
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent, as a licensed citrus fruit dealer, breached the terms of an oral contract for the purchase of citrus fruit during the 1992-1993 shipping season, whether Respondent misappropriated certain other citrus fruit owned by Petitioner during the 1992-1993 shipping season, and further, whether such actions by Respondent constitute violations of the Florida Citrus Code for which the proceeds of the citrus fruit dealer's bond executed by Co-Respondent should be paid to Petitioner in satisfaction of Petitioner's claim pursuant to Section 601.66, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Riverfront Groves, Inc., is a corporation with an office in Vero Beach, Florida. At all material times, Petitioner was in the business of selling and marketing citrus fruit. At all material times, Daniel R. Richey was vice-president of Petitioner, in charge of the fresh fruit packing operation. Respondent, Bagaley Groves, is a business with an office in Vero Beach, Florida. At all material times, Respondent operated a citrus fruit gift shipping packinghouse. At all material times, Robert G. Bagaley was the owner of Respondent. Co-Respondent, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, is an insurance company, which was authorized to write surety bonds during the 1992-1993 citrus fruit shipping season. On December 10, 1992, Co-Respondent executed, as surety, Citrus Fruit Dealer's Bond No. 77-LP-007-245-0002, in the principal sum of $10,000.00, binding Co-Respondent as surety, to the Florida Commissioner of Agriculture. The terms and conditions of the bond were that Respondent, as the principal executing such bond, would comply with the provisions of the Florida Citrus Code during the 1992-1993 citrus fruit shipping season, and with the terms and conditions of all contracts relating to the purchase, handling, sale, and accounting of citrus fruit. Respondent held a valid citrus fruit dealer's license issued by the Department of Citrus for the 1991-1992 shipping season. On July 16, 1992, Respondent, by and through its owner Robert Bagaley, filed with the Department of Citrus an application for license as a citrus fruit dealer for the 1992-1993 shipping season. As indicated above, Respondent's bond required for licensure was not executed until December 10, 1992, and it was not until January 25, 1993, that Respondent was issued citrus fruit dealer's license No. 0269 for the 1992-1993 shipping season. The license is not specifically retroactive, and merely states that Respondent is ". . . granted a license to engage in the business of Citrus Fruit Dealer through July 31, 1993." At all material times Respondent, by and through its owner Robert Bagaley, held itself out as a licensed citrus fruit dealer in the state of Florida. In the fall of 1992, Respondent learned from a mutual friend, Henry Schacht, that Petitioner had navel oranges located in a grove in Indian River County, Florida, suitable for use in Respondent's fresh fruit packinghouse. In mid-November 1992, Petitioner, through its authorized representative Daniel R. Richey, and Respondent, through its owner Robert Bagaley, agreed that Respondent would purchase approximately 2,400 boxes of navel oranges from Petitioner at $7.00 per box. Respondent did not hold a valid license as a citrus fruit dealer in the state of Florida at the time this oral contract was entered into with Petitioner. Respondent harvested a total of 150 boxes of these navel oranges during the period of November 13 - 17, 1992, for which Respondent paid Petitioner the agreed upon price of $7.00 per box. This payment in the amount of $1,050.00 was made by check dated November 18, 1992. On December 3, 1992, Petitioner delivered a written contract to Respondent setting forth Petitioner's understanding of the terms of their agreement. The contract was executed by Petitioner. Respondent declined to sign the written contract, and the contract was returned to Petitioner on December 10, 1992. In early December 1992, Respondent learned from James Earl Brantley that some of the navel oranges in Petitioner's grove had green mold, a condition that would make the fruit unsuitable for fresh fruit packing. On December 10, 1992, Respondent repudiated the oral contract and notified Petitioner that Respondent could not use, and did not need, any more of Petitioner's navel oranges. Respondent did not inform Petitioner that some of the navel oranges had developed green mold, or that the navel oranges were otherwise not merchantable. At the time Respondent repudiated the oral contract, Respondent did not hold a valid license as a citrus fruit dealer in the state of Florida. By December 10, 1992, the marketing conditions for navel oranges were substantially deteriorating. From December 11 and 15, 1992, Petitioner harvested and processed the balance of the navel orange crop from the grove, some 2,785 boxes. Petitioner attempted to pack the oranges as fresh fruit. The packout ratio of these 2,785 boxes was approximately 18 percent, yielding Petitioner a net return of $78.01, ($129.38 return for 640 boxes picked December 11 and 12, 1992, and a loss of $51.37 on the remainder picked between December 12 and 15, 1992. Petitioner incurred a loss of $19,365.62, as result of Respondent's failure to pay the agreed upon contract price of $7.00 per box for the balance of the navel oranges. At the time Respondent (through Bagaley) notified Petitioner (through Richey) that Respondent did not intend to harvest the balance of the fruit, Petitioner informed Respondent that the remaining fruit would be harvested, that an accounting of the net proceeds for the remaining fruit would be made, and that the parties could then review the matter as to any outstanding indebtedness which might be due under the terms of the oral agreement. Respondent stated that a review after harvesting and accounting was acceptable. Within sixty days thereafter Petitioner (through Richey) received the accounting and met with Respondent (through Bagaley). At that time Respondent did not acknowledge the indebtedness, nor promise to pay the indebtedness to Petitioner. Subsequent to January 25, 1993, Respondent mistakenly picked red grapefruit from a grove owned by Petitioner, which was adjacent to a grapefruit block Respondent had purchased from a different owner. The parties agree that Respondent owes Petitioner $375.00 or $2.50 for 150 boxes of grapefruit picked from this grove. Respondent tendered a check to Petitioner in the amount of $375.00 for payment of the grapefruit; however, Petitioner declined to accept payment for the grapefruit pending resolution of Petitioner's claim for the navel oranges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department enter a Final Order adjudicating the amount of indebtedness owed Petitioner by Respondent in accordance with Section 601.66, Florida Statutes, is $375.00 for 150 boxes of grapefruit mistakenly harvested. It is further recommended that Petitioner's claim for damages resulting from the contract for navel oranges entered into prior to Respondent's licensure as a citrus fruit dealer during the 1992-1993 shipping season be dismissed. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of August, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 4th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX As to Petitioner's Proposed Findings: 1-9. Adopted and incorporated. Adopted, except to the extent that Respondent's repudiation of the contract was solely related to market conditions. Adopted except as to Respondent's promise to pay subsequent to January 25, 1993. 12-14. These paragraphs constitute conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Lockwood III, Esquire PETERSON, MYERS, CRAIG, CREWS BRANDON & PUTERBAUGH, P.A. Post Office Drawer 7608 Winter Haven, Florida 33883-7608 Eugene J. O'Neill, Esquire GOULD, COOKSEY, FENNELL, BARKETT, O'NEILL & MARINE, P.A. 979 Beachland Boulevard Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Mr. David Z. Cutright Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company 1324 16th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Findings Of Fact Facts stipulated to by parties M & B Products, Inc., submitted the lowest bid on School Board Bid No. 050-P-03, bid title Fruit Juice II, on August 17, 1993. Exhibit A, attached to the stipulation, is a true and correct copy of the bid submitted by M & B Products, Inc. Exhibit B, attached to the stipulation, is a true and correct copy of a document entitled "Important Notice To Bidders, New Statement Must Be Submitted For All Bids after 1/1/93." This document was a part of the bid documents and was provided to all prospective bidders who received the bid documents. Exhibit C, attached to the stipulation, is a true and correct copy of a sworn statement pursuant to section 287.133(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which was submitted by the president of M & B Products, Inc., pursuant to the requirement of the statute and the previously mentioned statement incorporated in the bid documents. A recommendation for award to M & B Products, Inc., was submitted to the School Board of Dade County, Florida, at its meeting of September 22, 1993. The matter was tabled by the School Board. Attached to the stipulation as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the transcript of the pertinent portion of that School Board meeting wherein this action was considered. On October 6, 1993, the School Board took this matter from the table. Exhibit E, attached to the stipulation, is a true and correct copy of the transcript of the meeting of October 6, 1993, wherein the School Board considered and took action rejecting all bids. After the September 22, 1993, School Board meeting, the attorney for the School Board received a letter, Exhibit F attached to the stipulation, from Joan Van Arsdall, Staff Attorney for the Department of Management Services of the State of Florida. Each member of the School Board received a copy of the letter per the School Board meeting on October 6, 1993. On September 8, 1993, Exhibit G was mailed to Phyllis Douglas. On September 10, 1993, Exhibit H was mailed to Phyllis Douglas. Those two letters were the only objections filed. On November 4, 1993, the bid on Fruit Juice II was canceled. See Exhibit I attached to the stipulation. Since June of 1987, the company known as M & B Products, Inc., has been doing business on a bid basis with over thirty (30) county school boards in the State of Florida. The Dade County School Board has, on previous occasions during the past several years, accepted the bid of M & B Products, Inc., when M & B Products, Inc., was the low bidder. No other school board has rejected the right of M & B Products, Inc., to bid and to have its bid accepted. The video tapes filed with the McClellan Affidavit accurately depict the events at the two relevant School Board meetings. No person or entity has complained about not being allowed to bid as a result of the bidding instructions furnished by the Dade County School Board. The only complaint was from the second lowest bidder. It is necessary for the employees of M & B Products, Inc., to work for several weeks prior to the submission of a bid to determine the cost availability of juice concentrate, freight, bank loans to carry the accounts receivable of Dade County, and the most economical distribution of the products to be assembled for the purpose of bidding. M & B Products, Inc., has never received a written protest of the bid. Facts based on stipulated documents The bid documents for the subject contract included the following language: IV. AWARDS A. RESERVATION FOR REJECTION OR AWARD. The Board reserves the right to reject any and all bids, to waive irregularities or technicalities and to request re-bids. The subject bid documents also included the following language: IMPORTANT NOTICE TO BIDDERS NEW STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR ALL BIDS AFTER 1/1/93 The State of Florida has enacted a new law that requires bidders or contractors to submit a sworn document stating whether or not a corporation, its officers, predecessors or successors have been convicted of a public entity crime as defined in Section 287.133(3)(a), Florida Statutes. In order to contract with a public entity, neither the bidder nor contractor nor any officer, director, executive, partner, shareholder, employee, member or agent who is active in the management of the business entity of the bidder, contractor or any affiliate shall have been convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. [Emphasis supplied.] The statement quoted immediately above was an erroneous description of the requirements of Section 287.133(2)(a), Florida Statutes. (See the text of Section 287.133(2)(a), Florida Statutes, in the conclusions of law below.) M & B Products, Inc., submitted a bid on the fruit juice contract notwithstanding the fact that its president had been convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. M & B Products, Inc., filled out the sworn statement required by the bid documents, correctly stating that an officer of the corporation had been convicted of a public entity crime. The second low bidder, Natural County Farms, protested the award to M & B Products, Inc., taking the position that the School Board should not contract with an entity whose officer had been convicted of a crime. The matter came on to be heard by the School Board on September 22, 1993, and the School Board attorney recommended that the award go to M & B Products, Inc., since neither that company nor its officer had been placed on the "convicted vendor list". Much discussion ensued during which the attorney for Natural County Farms alleged that M & B Products, Inc., was "not on that list because somebody messed up and didn't put him on the list". Board member Renick asked the School Board attorney to recheck the facts with Tallahassee. The attorney agreed to do so and the matter was ultimately tabled. The matter was taken from the table on October 6, 1993. At this meeting, the attorney for Natural County Farms for the first time raised the issue of the language set forth in the bid documents to the effect that no bidder may do business with a public entity if it or one of its officers has been convicted of a public entity crime. The attorney took the position that the School Board's own bid documents excluded M & B Products, Inc., from consideration notwithstanding the fact that M & B Products, Inc. was not "on the list". The attorney for the School Board explained that the bid document had incompletely stated the statutory provisions. Some Board members expressed concern about the erroneous interpretation of the statute and about the ambiguity it may have created in the bid preparation. Furthermore, some Board members expressed the view that the low bidder was not qualified pursuant to the Board's own bid specifications and the School Board attorney advised that if the Board did not want to award to the low bidder because of the statement in the specifications, it should reject all bids, rewrite the specifications and re- bid. At the meeting on October 6, 1993, the School Board voted to reject all bids.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, issue a Final Order in this case denying the relief sought by the Petitioner and dismissing the petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 12th day of January 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry M. Hobbs, Esquire Post Office Box 18225 Tampa, Florida 33679-8225 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue #403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue #403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Deerfield Groves Company (Deerfield), is a licensed citrus fruit dealer under Chapter 601, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 20-34, Florida Administrative Code. As a licensee, Deerfield is subject to administrative and criminal prosecution for violation of the statutes and rules governing licensed citrus fruit dealers and was under administrative prosecution for alleged violations of Section 601.33, Florida Statutes, and Rule 20-34.11, Florida Administrative Code, at the time of the final hearing. Deerfield has legal standing as a party petitioner in this case. Respondent, Department Of Citrus (DOC), promulgated Rule 20-34.11, Florida Administrative Code, under the authority of Section 601.10, Florida Statutes. Rule 20-34.11 is designed to implement Section 601.33, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Department Of Agriculture And Consumer Services, (DACS), is the agency charged with the duty to enforce Section 601.33, Florida Statutes, and Rule 20- 34.11, Florida Administrative Code. Personnel of DACS' Division Of Fruit And Vegetable Inspection also are responsible for testing fresh citrus for maturity under Chapter 20-34, Florida Administrative Code. Licensees such as Deerfield furnish a testing room for DACS inspectors to perform maturity tests and certify fresh citrus, as required for marketing fresh fruit. DACS leases an extractor, used for squeezing juice from fruit samples, and subleases the extractor to the licensee. Under the sublease, the extractor is kept in the testing room for use by DACS inspectors and, when not being used by DACS inspectors, for use by the licensee in performing its own tests. Typically, the licensee furnishes the testing room with a table for two and a chair or two. When DACS inspectors perform maturity tests at the beginning of the early harvest, they bring most of the things they need for testing. The licensee provides the bins in which the fruit samples are carried into the testing room. The inspectors bring either a DACS slicing knife or their own. The licensee provides buckets it owns for use by the inspector during the test to collect juice extracted from fruit samples. The DACS inspectors also bring: a sizer to measure the fruit samples; a 2000 c.c. graduated cylinder to measure juice quantities; a 500 c.c. graduated cylinder to hold juice being tested for solids content and for temperature; aluminum pans to hold the graduated cylinders; a combination hydrometer for measuring juice solids content and temperature; a 25 m.1. pipet for transferring a measured amount of juice into a flask; the flask; a bottle of phenothaline with eyedropper top used for adding measured amounts of phenothaline to the flask of measured juice; a bottle of alkaline solution; and a burette for adding a measured amount of the alkaline solution to the flask of measured juice. During the harvest season, DACS leaves its equipment, instruments and solutions referred to in the preceding paragraph in the testing room. They are kept separate from the licensee's property and are not supposed to be used by the licensee. However, DACS allows the licensee to use its own bins and buckets and the extractor to conduct its own tests in the testing room when DACS inspectors are not using it. 1/ Some DACS inspectors request or allow licensees to assist during testing or to handle the fruit samples. 2/ Some allow licensees to attempt to influence the inspector's judgment by questioning the validity of the test or the accuracy of the inspector's observations or by comparing the inspector's results with the results of its own tests. Sometimes, this results in correction of an error the inspector otherwise would have made. It was not proved, however that there is an agency policy of requesting or allowing licensees to conduct themselves in those ways during testing. DACS has a policy to allow only one licensee representative in the testing room with the DACS inspector during testing. Violation of this policy is viewed as a violation of Section 601.33, Florida Statutes (1983). However, not all DACS inspectors strictly enforce this policy. Some allow more than one licensee representative in the testing room.
The Issue The issues concern the complaint by Petitioner against Respondents for the alleged failure to pay for $125.00 worth of medium zucchini squash also referred to as medium green squash. See Sections 604.15 through 604.30, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sells produce. East Coast purchases produce and resells that produce at wholesale. The transaction which is in dispute here concerns an April 25, 1990 sale of medium zucchini squash. On that date Jerry B. Portnoy, Vice President for East Coast who runs the day to day operations of the company and buys produce spoke with Petitioner. In that conversation, which took place early in the morning, Petitioner stated that he had the squash to sell. Portnoy told Petitioner that he had plenty of that form of produce on hand. Petitioner stated that this was the last picking and that he would give Portnoy a good price. The price that Petitioner mentioned was $2.50 a crate. Mr. Portnoy said that he could use about 100 crates and he reiterated that he had plenty of that type of produce on hand. That comment by Mr. Portnoy met with the remark by Petitioner which was to the effect, that there might be a few additional crates above the 100 discussed. Portnoy said that he did not need any more than 100 crates in that he had plenty of that produce on hand. As Portnoy described at hearing, he felt that he really did not even need 100 crates; however, based upon the past working relationship between the Petitioner and Portnoy he agreed to take 100 crates. Contrary to the agreement between Portnoy and the Petitioner, sometime on the evening of April 25, 1990, Petitioner delivered 236 crates of the squash. No one was at East Coast at its Jacksonville, Florida business location to receive the squash and inspect them. East Coast would not have accepted 236 crates that were delivered if it had known of that number of crates. No one was available to inspect the squash until the following morning. On April 26, 1990, Mr. Portnoy examined the squash and found that some of the product was inferior and was in a state of decay. As a consequence, Mr. Portnoy called the Petitioner on the telephone on that morning and told the Petitioner that the Petitioner had sent too many crates and some of the squash were bad. Nonetheless, Mr. Portnoy told Petitioner that he would work it out as best he could, meaning that he would sell as much of the product as possible. During contact with the Petitioner on the part of East Coast, Petitioner did not ask for a federal inspection. East Coast was able to sell all but 50 crates of the squash as delivered. It submitted payment in the amount of $465 as reflected on the face of the invoice which Petitioner sent to East Coast. That exhibit is Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. It reflects that 50 crates were dumped which had they been sold would have been worth $125.00. It is that $125.00 which is in dispute. Mr. Portnoy called the Petitioner after the squash had been sold. That call took place a couple of weeks later. In the course of this conversation the Petitioner said that he did not want to hear about problems anymore and that he wanted to be paid for the full amount of all crates delivered. Mr. Portnoy said that 50 crates had been lost and that the amount being remitted through a check would relate only to those crates that had been sold. This describes the amount remitted on June 15, 1990 set out in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Petitioner replied that he did not know if he would cash the check or not. Mr. Portnoy said that the check in the amount of $465.00 was for payment in full. This concluded their business until the time of the complaint filed by the Petitioner. On that facts as reported, there was no agreement to sell more than 100 crates. The additional crates that were sold by East Coast was a gratuitous gesture on the part of East Coast for which Petitioner was paid the full amount. The 50 crates that were not paid for contained inferior products for which Petitioner was not entitled to payment. This speaks to the 50 crates that were dumped which had they been sold would have been worth $125.00.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which dismisses the complaint of the Petitioner and relieves the Respondents of any financial obligation to pay the contested $125.00 claim. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 8th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: David Browning c/o David Browning Wholesale Produce 234 Church Street Starke, FL 32091 East Coast Fruit Company Jerry Portnoy, Vice President Post Office Box 2547 Jacksonville, FL 32203 James W. Sears, Esquire 511 North Ferncreek Avenue Orlando, FL 32803 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
The Issue The issue presented for decision is whether Proposed Rules 20-15.001, 20-15.002, and 20-15.003 constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to Section 120.52(8)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulated facts, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Florida Citrus Commission was established in 1935 to organize and promote the growing and sale of various citrus products, fresh and processed, in the State of Florida. The purpose of the Citrus Commission is today reflected in Section 601.02, Florida Statutes. The powers of the Florida Citrus Commission ("the Commission") and the Department, are set forth in full in Section 601.10, Florida Statutes. The powers of the Department include the power to tax and raise other revenue to achieve the purposes of the Department. In particular, Section 601.10(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, state: The Department of Citrus shall have and shall exercise such general and specific powers as are delegated to it by this chapter and other statutes of the state, which powers shall include, but shall not be confined to, the following: To adopt and, from time to time, alter, rescind, modify, or amend all proper and necessary rules, regulations, and orders for the exercise of its powers and the performance of its duties under this chapter and other statutes of the state, which rules and regulations shall have the force and effect of law when not inconsistent therewith. To act as the general supervisory authority over the administration and enforcement of this chapter and to exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be imposed upon it by other laws of the state. The Department is authorized to set standards by Section 601.11, Florida Statutes, as follows: The Department of Citrus shall have full and plenary power to, and may, establish state grades and minimum maturity and quality standards not inconsistent with existing laws for citrus fruits and food products thereof containing 20 percent or more citrus or citrus juice, whether canned or concentrated, or otherwise processed, including standards for frozen concentrate for manufacturing purposes, and for containers therefor, and shall prescribe rules or regulations governing the marking, branding, labeling, tagging, or stamping of citrus fruit, or products thereof whether canned or concentrated, or otherwise processed, and upon containers therefor for the purpose of showing the name and address of the person marketing such citrus fruit or products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed; the grade, quality, variety, type, or size of citrus fruit, the grade, quality, variety, type, and amount of the products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed, and the quality, type, size, dimensions, and shape of containers therefor, and to regulate or prohibit the use of containers which have been previously used for the sale, transportation, or shipment of citrus fruit or the products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed, or any other commodity; provided, however, that the use of secondhand containers for sale and delivery of citrus fruit for retail consumption within the state shall not be prohibited; provided, however, that no standard, regulation, rule, or order under this section which is repugnant to any requirement made mandatory under federal law or regulations shall apply to citrus fruit, or the products thereof, whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed, or to containers therefor, which are being shipped from this state in interstate commerce. All citrus fruit and the products thereof whether canned or concentrated or otherwise processed sold, or offered for sale, or offered for shipment within or without the state shall be graded and marked as required by this section and the regulations, rules, and orders adopted and made under authority of this section, which regulations, rules, and orders shall, when not inconsistent with state or federal law, have the force and effect of law. The Department is authorized to conduct citrus research by Section 601.13, Florida Statutes. To help pay for these duties of the Department, the Legislature first enacted the "box tax" in 1949. The box tax is now codified as Section 601.15(3), Florida Statutes. Section 601.15(3)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part: There is hereby levied and imposed upon each standard-packed box of citrus fruit grown and placed into the primary channel of trade in this state an excise tax at annual rates for each citrus season as determined from the tables in this paragraph and based upon the previous season's actual statewide production as reported in the United States Department of Agriculture Citrus Crop Production Forecast as of June 1. Section 601.15(3)(a), Florida Statutes, goes on to set forth specific rates for fresh grapefruit, processed grapefruit, fresh oranges, processed oranges, and fresh or processed tangerines and citrus hybrids. Section 601.15(1), Florida Statutes, sets forth the Department's authority to administer the box tax, as follows: The administration of this section shall be vested in the Department of Citrus, which shall prescribe suitable and reasonable rules and regulations for the enforcement hereof, and the Department of Citrus shall administer the taxes levied and imposed hereby. All funds collected under this section and the interest accrued on such funds are consideration for a social contract between the state and the citrus growers of the state whereby the state must hold such funds in trust and inviolate and use them only for the purposes prescribed in this chapter. The Department of Citrus shall have power to cause its duly authorized agent or representative to enter upon the premises of any handler of citrus fruits and to examine or cause to be examined any books, papers, records, or memoranda bearing on the amount of taxes payable and to secure other information directly or indirectly concerned in the enforcement hereof. Any person who is required to pay the taxes levied and imposed and who by any practice or evasion makes it difficult to enforce the provisions hereof by inspection, or any person who, after demand by the Department of Citrus or any agent or representative designated by it for that purpose, refuses to allow full inspection of the premises or any part thereof or any books, records, documents, or other instruments in any manner relating to the liability of the taxpayer for the tax imposed or hinders or in anywise delays or prevents such inspection, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The box tax was challenged in 1936 under various provisions of the Florida Constitution as well as the Export Clause, Article 1, s. 9, cl. 5, of the United States Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in 1937 upholding the validity of the box tax. C.V. Floyd Fruit Company v. Florida Citrus Commission, 128 Fla. 565, 175 So. 248 (1937). In 1970, the Legislature enacted the "equalization tax," codified as Section 601.155, Florida Statutes. The statute mirrored Section 601.15, Florida Statutes, but added certain processors who were mixing foreign citrus products with Florida products. The purpose of the equalization tax was to have all Florida processors of citrus products help pay for the costs of the Department, rather than have the burden fall entirely on the Florida growers subject to the box tax. Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part: The first person who exercises in this state the privilege of processing, reprocessing, blending, or mixing processed orange products or processed grapefruit products or the privilege of packaging or repackaging processed orange products or processed grapefruit products into retail or institutional size containers or, except as provided in subsection (9) or except if a tax is levied and collected on the exercise of one of the foregoing privileges, the first person having title to or possession of any processed orange product or any processed grapefruit product who exercises the privilege in this state of storing such product or removing any portion of such product from the original container in which it arrived in this state for purposes other than official inspection or direct consumption by the consumer and not for resale shall be assessed and shall pay an excise tax upon the exercise of such privilege at the rate described in subsection (2). Upon the exercise of any privilege described in subsection (1), the excise tax levied by this section shall be at the same rate per box of oranges or grapefruit utilized in the initial production of the processed citrus products so handled as that imposed, at the time of exercise of the taxable privilege, by s. 601.15 per box of oranges. In order to administer the tax, the Legislature provided the following relevant provisions in Section 601.155, Florida Statutes: Every person liable for the excise tax imposed by this section shall keep a complete and accurate record of the receipt, storage, handling, exercise of any taxable privilege under this section, and shipment of all products subject to the tax imposed by this section. Such record shall be preserved for a period of 1 year and shall be offered for inspection upon oral or written request by the Department of Citrus or its duly authorized agent. Every person liable for the excise tax imposed by this section shall, at such times and in such manner as the Department of Citrus may by rule require, file with the Department of Citrus a return, certified as true and correct, on forms to be prescribed and furnished by the Department of Citrus, stating, in addition to other information reasonably required by the Department of Citrus, the number of units of processed orange or grapefruit products subject to this section upon which any taxable privilege under this section was exercised during the period of time covered by the return. Full payment of excise taxes due for the period reported shall accompany each return. All taxes levied and imposed by this section shall be due and payable within 61 days after the first of the taxable privileges is exercised in this state. Periodic payment of the excise taxes imposed by this section by the person first exercising the taxable privileges and liable for such payment shall be permitted only in accordance with Department of Citrus rules, and the payment thereof shall be guaranteed by the posting of an appropriate certificate of deposit, approved surety bond, or cash deposit in an amount and manner as prescribed by the Department of Citrus. * * * (11) This section shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes set forth and as additional and supplemental powers vested in the Department of Citrus under the police power of this state. In March 2000, certain citrus businesses challenged Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, as being unconstitutional. At the time of the suit, Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, read as follows: All products subject to the taxable privileges under this section, which products are produced in whole or in part from citrus fruit grown within the United States, are exempt from the tax imposed by this section to the extent that the products are derived from oranges or grapefruit grown within the United States. In the case of products made in part from citrus fruit grown within the United States, it shall be the burden of the persons liable for the excise tax to show the Department of Citrus, through competent evidence, proof of that part which is not subject to a taxable privilege. The citrus businesses claimed the exemption in Section 601.155(5) rendered the tax unconstitutionally discriminatory, in that processors who imported juice from foreign countries to be blended with Florida juice were subject to the equalization tax, whereas processors who imported juice from places such as California, Arizona and Texas enjoyed an exemption from the tax. The case, Tampa Juice Service, Inc., et al. v. Department of Citrus, Case No. GCG-00-3718 (Consolidated) ("Tampa Juice"), was brought in the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Polk County. Judge Dennis P. Maloney of that court continues to preside over that case. In a partial final declaratory judgment effective March 15, 2002, Judge Maloney found Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution due to its discriminatory effect in favor of non-Florida United States juice. In an order dated April 15, 2002, Judge Maloney severed the exemption in Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, from the remainder of the statute. The court's decision necessitated the formulation of a remedy for the injured plaintiffs. While the parties were briefing the issue before the court, the Florida Legislature met and passed Chapter 2002-26, Laws of Florida, which amended Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, to read as follows: Products made in whole or in part from citrus fruit on which an equivalent tax is levied pursuant to s. 601.15 are exempt from the tax imposed by this section. In the case of products made in part from citrus fruit exempt from the tax imposed by this section, it shall be the burden of the persons liable for the excise tax to show the Department of Citrus, through competent evidence, proof of that part which is not subject to a taxable privilege. Chapter 2002-26, Laws of Florida, was given an effective date of July 1, 2002. By order dated August 8, 2002, Judge Maloney set forth his decision as to the remedy for the plaintiffs injured by the discriminatory effect of Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes. Judge Maloney expressly relied on the rationale set forth in Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. McKesson Corporation, 574 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1991)("McKesson II"). In its initial McKesson decision, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. McKesson Corporation, 524 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1988), the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment ruling that Florida's alcoholic beverage tax scheme, which gave tax preferences and exemptions to certain alcoholic beverages made from Florida crops, unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce. The Florida Supreme Court also affirmed that portion of the summary judgment giving the ruling prospective effect, thus denying the plaintiff a refund of taxes paid pursuant to the unconstitutional scheme. The decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In McKesson Corporation v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18 (1990), the United States Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court's decision as to the prospective effect of its decision. The United States Supreme Court held that: The question before us is whether prospective relief, by itself, exhausts the requirements of federal law. The answer is no: If a State places a taxpayer under duress promptly to pay a tax when due and relegates him to a postpayment refund action in which he can challenge the tax's legality, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment obligates the State to provide meaningful backward-looking relief to rectify any unconstitutional deprivation. 496 U.S. at 31 (footnotes omitted). The United States Supreme Court set forth the following options by which the state could meet its obligation to provide "meaningful backward-looking relief": [T]he State may cure the invalidity of the Liquor Tax by refunding to petitioner the difference between the tax it paid and the tax it would have been assessed were it extended the same rate reductions that its competitors actually received. . . . Alternatively, to the extent consistent with other constitutional restrictions, the State may assess and collect back taxes from petitioner's competitors who benefited from the rate reductions during the contested tax period, calibrating the retroactive assessment to create in hindsight a nondiscriminatory scheme. . . . Finally, a combination of a partial refund to petitioner and a partial retroactive assessment of tax increases on favored competitors, so long as the resultant tax actually assessed during the contested tax period reflects a scheme that does not discriminate against interstate commerce, would render Petitioner's resultant deprivation lawful and therefore satisfy the Due Process Clause's requirement of a fully adequate postdeprivation procedure. 496 U.S. at 40-41 (citations and footnotes omitted). The United States Supreme Court expressly provided that the state has the option of choosing the form of relief it will grant. In keeping with the United States Supreme Court opinion, the Florida Supreme Court granted the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the "Division") leave to advise the Court as to the form of relief the state wished to provide. The Division proposed to retroactively assess and collect taxes from those of McKesson's competitors who had benefited from the discriminatory tax scheme. McKesson contended that a refund of the taxes it had paid was the only clear and certain remedy, because retroactive taxation of its competitors would violate their due process rights. McKesson II, 574 So. 2d at 116. The Florida Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on McKesson's refund claim, with the following instructions: While McKesson may not necessarily be entitled to a refund, it is entitled to a "clear and certain remedy," as outlined in the Supreme Court's opinion. Because nonparties, such as amici, will be directly affected by the retroactive tax scheme proposed by the state, all affected by the proposed emergency rule must be given notice and an opportunity to intervene in this action. Therefore, on remand, the trial court not only must determine whether the state's proposal meets "the minimum federal requirements" outlined in the Supreme Court's opinion, it also must determine whether the proposal comports with federal and state protections afforded those against whom the proposed tax will be assessed. We emphasize that the state has the option of choosing the manner in which it will reformulate the alcoholic beverage tax during the contested period so that the resultant tax actually assessed during that period reflects a scheme which does not discriminate against interstate commerce. Therefore, if the trial court should rule that the state's proposal to retroactively assess and collect taxes from McKesson's competitors does not meet constitutional muster and such ruling is upheld on appeal, the state may offer an alternative remedy for the trial court's review. However, any such proposal likewise must satisfy the standards set forth by the Supreme Court as well as be consistent with other constitutional restrictions. 574 So. 2d at 116. In the Tampa Juice case, Judge Maloney assessed the options prescribed by the series of McKesson cases and concluded that the only fair remedy was to assess and collect back assessments from those who benefited from the unconstitutional equalization tax exemption. His August 8, 2002, order directed the Department to "take appropriate steps, consistent with existing law, to assess and collect the Equalization tax from those entities which [benefited] from the unconstitutional exemption." On September 18, 2002, the Department promulgated the Emergency Rules that were at issue in DOAH Case No. 02-3648RE. The Emergency Rules were filed with the Department of State on September 24, 2002, and took effect on that date. Those emergency rules were held invalid in Peace River, and are not at issue in the instant case. In the November 15, 2002 issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly (vol. 28, no. 46, pp. 4996-4998), the Department published the Proposed Rules that were at issue in DOAH Case No. 02-4607RP. In the March 7, 2003, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly (vol. 29, no. 10, p. 1036), the Department published amendments to the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rules, as amended, read as follows: EQUALIZATION TAX ON NON-FLORIDA UNITED STATES JUICE 20-15.001 Intent. The Court in Tampa Juice Service, et al v. Florida Department of Citrus in Consolidated Case Number GCG-003718 (Circuit Court in and for Polk County, Florida) severed the exemption contained in Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, that provided an exemption for persons who exercised one of the enumerated Equalization Tax privileges on non-Florida, United States juice. The Court had previously determined that the stricken provisions operated in a manner that violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. On August 8, 2002, the Court ordered that the Florida Department of Citrus "take appropriate steps, consistent with existing law, to assess and collect the Equalization tax from those entities which [benefited] from the unconstitutional exemption." It is the Florida Department of Citrus' intent by promulgating the following remedial rule to implement a non- discriminatory tax scheme, which does not impose a significant tax burden that is so harsh and oppressive as to transgress constitutional limitations. These rules shall be applicable to those previously favored persons who received favorable tax treatment under the statutory sections cited above. Specific Authority 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. Law Implemented 601.02, 601.10, , 601.155 FS. History-- New . 20-15.002 Definitions. "Previously favored persons" shall be defined as any person who exercised an enumerated Equalization Tax privilege as defined by Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, but who was exempt from payment of the Equalization Tax due to the exemption for non-Florida, United States juice set forth in the statutory provision, which was ultimately determined to be unconstitutional and severed from Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes. The "tax period" during which the severed provisions of Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes, were in effect shall be defined as commencing on October 6, 1997, and ending on March 14, 2002. "Tax liability" shall be defined as the total amount of taxes due to the Florida Department of Citrus during the "tax period," at the following rates per box for each respective fiscal year: Fiscal Year Processed Rate Orange Grapefruit 1997-1998 .175 .30 1998-1999 .17 .30 1999-2000 .18 .325 2000-2001 .175 .30 2001-2002 .165 .18 Specific Authority 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. Law Implemented 601.02, 601.10, , 601.155 FS. History-- New . 20-15.003 Collection. The Florida Department of Citrus shall calculate the tax liability for each person or entity that exercised an enumerated Equalization Tax privilege outlined in section 601.155, Florida Statutes, upon non-Florida, United States juice based upon inspection records maintained by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the United States Department of Agriculture. Subsequent to adoption of this rule, the Florida Department of Citrus will provide to the previously favored persons by certified mail a Notice of Tax Liability which shall contain a demand for payment consistent with the above-referenced itemized statement. The Department will deem late payment of Equalization Taxes owed by previously favored persons to constitute good cause, and shall waive the 5 percent penalty authorized by Section 601.155(10), F.S., as compliance with either of the following is established by Department [sic]: Lump sum payment of the tax liability remitted with the filing of Department of Citrus Form 4R (incorporated by reference in Rule 20-100.004, F.A.C.) for the relevant years and then-applicable tax rate(s) per subsection 20-15.002(3), F.A.C., within 61 days of receiving Notice of Tax Liability; or Equal installment payments remitted with the filing of Department of Citrus Form 4R (incorporated by reference in Rule 20- 100.004, F.A.C.) for the relevant years and then-applicable tax rate(s) per subsection subsection [sic] 20-15.002(3), F.A.C., over a 60-month period, the first payment being due within 61 days of receiving Notice of Tax Liability pursuant to subsection 20- 15.003(2), F.A.C.; or The Good Cause provisions of 601.155(10), F.S., shall not apply to persons who do not comply with paragraph 20- 15.003(2)(a), F.A.C., or paragraph 20- 15.003(2)(b), F.A.C. Failure to pay the taxes or penalties due under 601.155, F.S. and Chapter 20-15, F.A.C., shall constitute grounds for revocation or suspension of a previously favored person's citrus fruit dealer's license pursuant to 601.56(4), F.S., 601.64(6), F.S., 601.64(7), F.S., and/or 601.67(1), F.S. The Florida Department of Citrus will not oppose the timely intervention of persons who previously enjoyed the subject exemption that wish to present a claim to the Court in the Tampa Juice Service, Inc., et al v. Florida Department of Citrus. However, the Florida Department of Citrus does not waive any argument regarding the validity of the calculation of the tax liability or that imposition of this tax is constitutional. Specific Authority 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. Law Implemented 601.02, 601.10, 601.15, 601.155 FS. History-- New . The Final Order in Peace River held that the Proposed Rules were not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, for reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law below. Judge Maloney has yet to rule on the backward-looking remedy proposed by the Department. On March 26, 2003, Judge Maloney entered an order extending until May 1, 2003, the time for interested parties to file motions to intervene with regard to the Department's proposed backward-looking relief. The order noted that the parties have stipulated to the suspension of the back tax as to plaintiffs and objecting non-parties until further order of the court. On February 19, 2003, Judge Maloney entered an "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment-- Import-Export." The sole issue before Judge Maloney was "whether Section 601.155, Florida Statutes, (the 'Equalization Tax'), as it existed in 1997, violates Article I, Section 10, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States (the 'Import- Export Clause')." (Emphasis in original) After setting forth the standard for analysis of whether a taxing scheme violates the Import-Export Clause under Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276, 96 S. Ct. 535, 46 L.Ed.2d 495 (1976), Judge Maloney ruled as follows: It is precisely [the exemption for United States products found in 601.155(5), Florida Statutes] that causes the 1997 Equalization Tax to contravene the Import-Export Clause. Specifically, the court finds that because the statute exempts "citrus fruit grown within the United States," but does not exempt citrus fruit grown in foreign countries, the exemption causes the tax to "fall on imports as such simply because of their place of origin." Michelin, 423 U.S. at 286. Additionally, because the tax falls on foreign-grown citrus as such simply because of its origin but does not fall on domestic-grown citrus, the Equalization Tax, with the exemption, creates a "special tariff or particular preference for certain domestic goods." Id. (i.e. California, Arizona, and Texas citrus products). * * * In conclusion, because the court finds the exemption contained within the 1997 Equalization Tax violates both the first and third elements of the Michelin test,1 the court finds the 1997 Equalization Tax violates Article I, Section 10, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States (the "Import-Export Clause"). On March 31, 2003, Judge Maloney entered an "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment." In this order, Judge Maloney found that the box tax itself, Section 601.15, Florida Statutes, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioners and Intervenor in the instant case are licensed citrus fruit dealers regulated by Chapter 601, Florida Statutes. As such, they are subject to the rules of the Department. Petitioners and Intervenor buy, sell, and manufacture citrus juices. They shipped products made with non- Florida U.S. juice during the tax period without paying equalization taxes. Petitioners and Intervenor have been notified by the Department that they are liable to pay back taxes pursuant to the Proposed Rules, as well as the invalid Emergency Rules.
