The Issue Whether Sunny Fresh Citrus Export and Sales, Co., LLC, is liable to Petitioner in the amount of $44,032.00 for delivery of fruit which remains unpaid.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, DP Partners, Ltd. (Partners), is a Florida Limited Partnership located in Lake Placid, Florida, engaged in the business of citrus production. Daniel H. Phypers and Danielle Phypers Daum, brother and sister, and their father Drew Phypers, are limited partners in the business. Respondent, Sunny Fresh Citrus Export and Sales Co., LLC, (the LLC) is a Florida Limited Liability Company headquartered in Vero Beach, Florida, engaged in the business of exporting citrus for retail sale. The LLC was organized and registered with the State of Florida Division of Corporations on November 3, 2011. The members of the LLC are Kelly Marinaro and Jean Marinaro, husband and wife. Kelly Marinaro (Marinaro) formerly conducted business in the name of Sunny Fresh Citrus Export and Sales Co. (the DBA), a fictitious-name entity registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, on October 23, 2007. The fictitious-name entity registration expired on December 31, 2012. Marinaro suffered a massive heart attack in November 2011 and was incapacitated. He did not return to work until the Spring of 2013. On November 4, 2011, after suffering the heart attack, and one day after organizing and registering the LLC, Marinaro conveyed durable power of attorney to Joseph Paladin (Paladin) as his Agent. Among the authority granted to Paladin, was the following: 2. To enter into binding contracts on my behalf and to sign, endorse and execute any written agreement and document necessary to enter into such contract and/or agreement, including but not limited to . . . contracts, covenants . . . and other debts and obligations and such other instruments in writing of whatever kind and nature as may be. * * * 9. To open, maintain and/or close bank accounts, including, but not limited to, checking accounts . . . to conduct business with any banking or financial institution with respect to any of my accounts, including, but not limited to, making deposits and withdrawals, negotiating or endorsing any checks . . . payable to me by any person, firm, corporation or political entity[.] * * * 12. To maintain and operate any business that I currently own or have an interest in or may own or have an interest in, in the future. In Marinaro’s absence, Paladin conducted the usual affairs of the business, including entering into contracts to purchase citrus from several growers. On October 19, 2012, Paladin entered into contract number 2033 with Partners to purchase approximately 6000 boxes of Murcots (a tangerine variety) at $12.00 per box.2/ The contract is signed by Paladin as the Agent of “Sunny Fresh Citrus Export & Sales Company, Licensed Citrus Fruit Dealer (Buyer).” On December 13, 2012, Sunny Fresh entered into contract number 2051 with Partners to purchase Hamlins (a different fruit variety) at $6.50 per box.3/ The contract price was for citrus “on the tree,” meaning it was the buyer’s responsibility to harvest the citrus. The contract is signed by Paladin as the Agent of “Sunny Fresh Citrus Export & Sales Company, Licensed Citrus Fruit Dealer (Buyer).” (Contract 2033 and 2051 are hereinafter referred to collectively as “the contracts”.) The contracts were prepared on pre-printed forms used by Marinaro’s businesses pre-dating Paladin’s involvement. The contract form is titled as follows: Citrus Purchase Contract & Agreement Sunny Fresh Citrus Export & Sales Company Cash Fruit Crop Buyer 2101 15th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Paladin testified that he was not aware of more than one company for Marinaro’s fruit-dealing business. He testified that he was not aware of any difference between Sunny Fresh Citrus Export and Sales Company and Sunny Fresh Citrus Export and Sales Co., LLC. Paladin was not aware of when the LLC was created. Paladin’s testimony is accepted as credible and reliable. Paladin testified that his intent was to enter into the contracts for the benefit of “Sunny Fresh.” “Sunny Fresh,” written in twelve-point bold red letters over an image of the sun in yellow outlined in red, is a trademark registered with the Florida Division of Corporations. Marinaro first registered the trademark in February 1998. In his trademark application, Marinaro entered the applicant’s name as “Kelly Marinaro D/B/A Sunny Fresh Citrus.” Marinaro renewed the trademark registration in 2007. Marinaro testified that the “Sunny Fresh” trademark is “owned by the LLC.” On February 20, 2012, Paladin, Marinaro and a third partner, Gary Parris, formed another company, Sunny Fresh Packing, LLC, the purpose of which was to run a fruit-packing house in Okeechobee, Florida. Equipment for the packing house was obtained from a packing house in Ft. Pierce, Florida, which was indebted to Marinaro, in some capacity, and went “belly up.” In March 2013, the Okeechobee packing house was struck by lightning. Shortly after the lightning strike, Marinaro, Paladin, and Mr. Parris, signed a letter addressed “To our valued Growers.” The letter explained that, due to both the lightning strike, which shorted out all computers and electrical components at the packing house, and reduced demand for product due to severe weather in the northeastern United States, they had made a “business decision to end the year now and prepare for next year.” The letter further explained that, “rather than spending thousands of dollars all at once, we feel, it makes better sense to use our cash flow to pay our growers first . . . . We will be sending out checks every week or every other week until everyone is paid or until we receive supplemental cash infusions that we are working on. In that case we would just pay everyone in full, from that.” The letter was prepared on letterhead bearing the “Sunny Fresh” trademark logo. Paladin made a number of payments to Partners on the contracts during 2012 and 2013. Each check shows payor name as “Sunny Fresh” with an address of 2101 15th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. Mr. Phypers met with Paladin a number of times to collect checks and understood that Paladin was making concerted efforts to pay all the growers. However, Partners did not receive full payment on the contracts. Paladin drafted a Release of Invoices Agreement (Agreement) by which creditor growers could receive partial payment on their outstanding contracts in exchange for a full release of liability from the buyer. The Agreement lists the following entities and persons as being released from liability: “Sunny Fresh Packing, LLC”; “Sunny Fresh Citrus Export and Sales Co., LLC”; and Kelly Marinaro. Paladin presented the Agreement to Partners with an offer to pay $36,449.45 in consideration for signing the Agreement. Partners did not sign the Agreement. The parties stipulated that the amount owed Partners under both contracts is $44,032.00. Respondent contends that Petitioner’s claim is filed against the wrong business entity. Respondent argues that Petitioner’s contracts were with the DBA, and that Petitioner’s claim is incorrectly brought against the LLC. Thus, Respondent reasons, the LLC is not liable to Petitioner for the monies owed. The DBA was registered with the State of Florida in 2007 and held an active fruit dealer’s license through July 31, 2012. Marinaro owned and operated the DBA at 2101 15th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. The DBA filed a citrus fruit dealer’s bond with the Department of Agriculture for the 2008-2009 shipping season. Marinaro registered the trademark “Sunny Fresh” logo in the name of the DBA in 2007, and was still using the logo on his business letterhead in 2013. Marinaro formed the LLC in 2011, which holds an active citrus fruit dealer’s license. Marinaro and his wife, Jean, are the only members of the LLC. The principal address is 2101 15th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. The LLC filed citrus fruit dealer’s bonds with the Department of Agriculture on June 28, 2012, for the shipping season ending July 31, 2013, and on May 2, 2013, for the shipping season ending July 31, 2014. Marinaro did not refile a bond for the DBA after forming the LLC. At all times relevant hereto, Marinaro’s fruit dealer’s business has been physically located at 2101 15th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. The building at that address bears the name “Sunny Fresh.” Marinaro testified that he formed the LLC shortly after his heart attack to “protect his personal assets.” Marinaro explained that he had little revenue in the LLC “for the next two years,” and he planned for the LLC to conduct sales for the packing company. He expected the LLC would be purchasing fruit from other packing houses. In fact, he testified that, during his absence, he was not aware that either the DBA or the LLC were purchasing fruit. Marinaro was clearly upset about the financial state of his business when he resumed control in the Spring of 2013. He testified that, prior to his heart attack, he was running a business with a typical $10 to $12 million yearly revenue, but that he returned to a business in debt to the tune of roughly $790,000.00. Marinaro lamented that Paladin entered into contracts to buy citrus when that was not the plan for the LLC. Alternately, he blamed Paladin for taking too much money out of the LLC to set up the packing house. Marinaro’s testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. He first testified that Paladin had full authority to purchase fruit in his absence, but later professed to be “dismayed” that his company was purchasing fruit in his absence. The evidence does not support a finding that the LLC was formed for any reason other than to continue his fruit dealings in a legal structure that would protect his personal assets. Marinaro’s explanation that the purpose of the LLC was to conduct sales for the packing company also lacks credibility. The LLC was organized in November 2011, but the packing house in Ft. Pierce from which he acquired the equipment to set up a packing house in Okeechobee did not go “belly up” until February 2012. Marinaro would have had to be clairvoyant to set up an LLC for the sole purpose of sales to a packing house about which he was not aware until four months later. Marinaro’s testimony that he was in the dark about the running of his business and that he was somehow duped by Paladin is likewise unreliable. Marinaro testified that, during his absence, he was “concerned that Paladin was entering into contracts where a bond was required, but not secured.”4/ He could not have been concerned about contracts to buy fruit without posting the required bond if he was not even aware that his company was purchasing fruit. Further, Marinaro neither questioned Paladin about entering into the citrus contracts, nor suggested Paladin use a different contract form for the LLC. The evidence establishes that Marinaro knew Paladin was purchasing fruit during Marinaro’s absence to continue the regular fruit-dealer’s business, and further, that Marinaro knew Paladin was entering into contracts on behalf of the LLC, the company formed just one day prior to Marinaro granting Paladin full power of attorney to run his business. Finally, Marinaro knowingly participated in the formation of Sunny Fresh Packing, LLC, in February 2012, four months after he became incapacitated. This required his involvement in a complicated business scheme in which his company collected on a debt owed by a packing house in Ft. Pierce, and acquired the equipment to run the new packing house, with two partners, Parris and Paladin, located in Okeechobee on property owned by a third party, Mr. Smith, who is not a member of Sunny Fresh Packing, LLC. It is unlikely Marinaro was clueless as to the fruit dealings of the LLC in his absence. Further, it is disingenuous, at best, for Marinaro to suggest that the contracts entered into in 2012 are not with the LLC, the corporation he formed in 2011 to protect his personal assets from his business obligations.
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 approving the claim of DP Partners, Ltd., against Sunny Fresh Citrus Export and Sales Co., LLC, in the amount of $44,032.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Suzanne Van Wyk 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 30th day of October, 2014.
The Issue What is the amount owed by D. L. Scotto and Company, Inc., d/b/a Tuxedo Fruit Company, to Thomas E. Davis, Inc., for Valencia oranges purchased in January, April, and May 2013?
Findings Of Fact A "dealer in agricultural products" is defined as a person, partnership, corporation, or other business entity, "engaged within this state in the business of purchasing, receiving, or soliciting agricultural products from the producer . . . for resale or processing for sale " § 604.15(2), Fla. Stat. (2013).1/ Respondent is licensed as a dealer in agricultural products. Petitioner is a "producer" for purposes of sections through 604.34, Florida Statutes. See § 604.15(9), Fla. Stat. (defining "producer" as "any producer of agricultural products produced in the state"). Contract #077 On January 25, 2013, Petitioner and Respondent entered into citrus fruit contract #077 wherein Respondent, for the price of $9.50 per box, agreed to purchase 5,000 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Cock Pen grove. Petitioner delivered, and Respondent accepted, 2,925 boxes of the promised oranges. To date, Respondent has only paid Petitioner for 1,962 ($9.50 x 1,962 = $18,639) boxes of oranges from the Cock Pen grove. Contract #078 On January 25, 2013, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a second citrus fruit contract (#078) wherein Respondent, for the price of $9.50 per box, agreed to purchase 4,500 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Patrick grove. Petitioner delivered, and Respondent accepted, 2,988 boxes of the promised oranges. To date, Respondent has only paid Petitioner for 792 ($9.50 x 792 = $7,524) boxes of oranges from the Patrick grove. Contract #M012 On April 25, 2013, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a third citrus fruit contract (#M012) wherein Respondent, for the price of $11.00 per box, agreed to purchase 1,200 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Johnson grove and 1,500 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Allegato grove. Petitioner delivered, and Respondent accepted, 1,161 boxes of the promised oranges from the Johnson grove and 1,296 boxes of oranges from the Allegato grove. To date, Respondent has not paid Petitioner for the oranges received from the Johnson and Allegato groves. Contract #M013 On May 2, 2013, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a fourth citrus fruit contract (#M013) wherein Respondent, for the price of $11.00 per box, agreed to purchase 1,500 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Tommy Ann grove. Petitioner delivered, and Respondent accepted, 1,674 boxes of the promised oranges from the Tommy Ann grove. To date, Respondent has not paid Petitioner for the oranges received from the Tommy Ann grove. Respondent's defense Each of the citrus fruit contracts at issue provides that the oranges "must be merchantable for fresh usage at the time of harvest and delivery." Respondent claims that significant quantities of the oranges that were received from Petitioner were not merchantable for fresh usage at the time of harvest and delivery. In reviewing the documentary evidence presented by both parties, it is evident that Petitioner's oranges were harvested and delivered to Respondent during the months of January through May 2013. From this period forward to the date of the final hearing held herein, Respondent never informed Petitioner that there was an issue with the merchantability of the oranges. Instead, whenever Petitioner contacted Respondent about the status of payment for the oranges, Respondent repeatedly assured Petitioner that payment was forthcoming. Respondent's testimony regarding the alleged compromised merchantability of the oranges that he received from Petitioner is not credible.
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 finding that D. L. Scotto and Company, Inc., d/b/a Tuxedo Fruit Company, is indebted to Thomas E. Davis, Inc., in the amount of $75,501.50 (includes filing fee) for the balance due for the oranges it purchased from Petitioner on January 25, April 25, and May 2, 2013. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 17th day of April, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 64-4.002 (the “Proposed Rule”) is an invalid exercise of the legislative authority delegated to the Department of Health (the “Department”).
Findings Of Fact In order to better contextualize the facts presented at final hearing and discussed below, the following excerpts from the Proposed Rule and the underlying statutory provision are provided: Section 381.986, Florida Statutes (8) Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers.- (a) The department shall license medical marijuana treatment centers to ensure reasonable statewide accessibility and availability as necessary for qualified patients registered in the medical marijuana use registry and who are issued a physician certification under this section. * * * The department shall license as medical marijuana treatment centers 10 applicants that meet the requirements of this section, under the following parameters: [Previously denied applicants meeting certain requirements not relevant to the instant action.] [One applicant from a specific class pursuant to a federal lawsuit.] As soon as practicable, but not later than October 3, 2017, the Department shall license applicants that meet the requirements of this section in sufficient numbers to result in 10 total licenses issued under this subparagraph, while accounting for the number of licenses issued under sub-subparagraphs a. and b. For up to two of the licenses issued under subparagraph 2., the department shall give preference to applicants thatdemonstrate in their applications that they own one or more facilities that are, or were, used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses and will use or convert the facility or facilities for the processing of marijuana. (Emphasis added). Florida Administrative Code Rule 64-4.002 (Proposed) (1)(f) For applicants seeking preference for registration as a medical marijuana treatment center pursuant to ss. 381.986(8)(a)3., F.S., the applicant must provide evidence that: The property at issue currently is or was previously used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses. In order to demonstrate the property meets this criteria, the applicant may provide documentation that the applicant currently holds or has held a registration certificate pursuant to section 601.40, F.S. A letter from the Department of Citrus certifying that the property currently is or was previously used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses will be accepted as sufficient evidence. The applicant as an individual holds, in his or her name, or the applicant as an entity holds, in the legal name of the entity, the deed to property meeting the criteria set forth in subparagraph 1. above; and A brief explanation of how the property will be used for purposes of growing, processing, or dispensing medical marijuana if the applicant is selected for registration. * * * Subject matter experts will substantively and comparatively review, evaluate, and score applications using [the Scorecard incorporated by reference]. * * * (a)7.(b) Scores for each section of the application will be combined to create an applicant’s total score. The department will generate a final ranking of the applicants in order of highest to lowest scores . . . . (c) In accordance with ss. 391.986(8)(a)3., F.S., the two highest scoring applicants that own one or more facilities that are, or were, used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses and will use or convert the facility or facilities for the processing of medical marijuana will receive an additional35 points to their respective total score. Licenses will be awarded, subject to availability as set forth in ss. 381.986(8)(a)2. and 381.986(8)(a)4., F.S., based on the highest total score in the following manner: The highest scoring applicant that is a recognized member of the Pigford or [the Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation] will receive a license. The remaining highest scoring applicants, after the addition of the preference points for applicants pursuant to paragraph (7)(c) above, will receive licenses up to the statutory cap set forth in ss. 381.986(8)(a)2., F.S. The remaining highest scoring applications, after removing any preference points received under paragraph (7)(c), will receive licenses up to the statutory cap . . . . (Emphasis added). The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administering and enforcing laws related to the general health of the people of the state. § 381.0011(2), Fla. Stat. As part of this duty, the Department is charged with implementing the Compassionate Medical Cannabis Act of 2014. See § 381.986, Fla. Stat. Favero is a Florida corporation in good standing since its incorporation in 1974, primarily engaged in the business of growing orchids. Favero aspires to file an application for licensure as a medical marijuana treatment center (“MMTC”). Following the passage of Senate Bill 8A by the 2017 Florida Legislature, which substantially rewrote section 318.986, Florida Statutes, Favero decided to seek the citrus preference described in section 381.986(3)(a)3. (hereinafter referred to as the “Preference Statute”). To that end, Favero purchased a citrus processing business in Safety Harbor, Florida, for approximately $775,000, including the business’s real property and all facilities located thereon. The purchase took place prior to publication of the Proposed Rule. The purchase of the Safety Harbor property reduced Favero’s financial liquidity but, presumably, not its net worth as the value of the property would replace the cash expenditure made for the purchase. It is Favero’s intent to convert the citrus processing facility located on the property into a medical marijuana processing facility if Favero receives the requisite license as a MMTC. Favero contends, as stated in the following paragraphs of its Petition Challenging the Invalidity of Proposed Rule 64-4.002: The Proposed Rule grants a preference to an applicant who owns “property” that was once used for citrus processing. The statute, however, clearly grants the preference only to applicants who “own one or more facilities that are, or were, used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing ” By using the broader word “property” rather than “facility,” the Department is granting the citrus preference to a broader group of applicants than the statute permits, such as owners of packinghouses and other properties that fail to meet the definition of “processor” or were not used for “canning” or “concentrating.” The statute is clear and unambiguous. The use of the word “property” rather than the statutory term “facilities” renders the rule invalid because the use of that term exceeds the Department’s rulemaking authority, enlarges and modifies and contravenes the requirements of Section 381.986(8)(a)3., is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, vests unbridled discretion in the agency and is arbitrary and capricious. See § 120.52(8)., Fla. Stat. * * * The Proposed Rule allows for a preference to only some applicants that own a citrus processing facility. Under the scoring system, applicants demonstrating that they own a citrus processing facility may receive an additional 35 points. However, the Proposed Rule does not guarantee that any applicant owning a citrus processing facility will actually receive those points or get a license. The Proposed Rule merely grants an additional 35 points to two applicants. The Department of Citrus has indicated that more than a dozen companies will qualify for the citrus preference. Under the Proposed Rule, most of those applicants would receive no additional points despite qualifying for the statutory preference. Additionally, the Proposed Rule provides no assurance that any applicant qualifying for the citrus preference will actually receive a license. The Form adopted by the Proposed Rule allows Department evaluators to award a maximum of 1,150 points in several categories. The additional 35 points available under the Proposed Rule amount to an addition of just a 3% bonus. If those extra 35 points are not enough to exceed the scores of other applicants, then no citrus-preference qualifying applicant will receive a license. Favero contends that reduction of its liquid assets could have a negative impact on its overall financial condition when considered by the Department as it reviews Favero’s MMTC application. Favero is concerned that this negative impact may not be completely offset by the citrus preference it is seeking. Mecca is a Florida corporation located at 7965 Lantana Road, Lantana, Florida. It has existed since November 15, 1973, has operated in Florida since the early 1970s, and began citrus farming on approximately 2,000 acres in 1983. Mecca has been and is currently licensed as a citrus dealer and a regulated citrus processing plant and citrus packinghouse. The “processing” done by Mecca does not involve canning or concentrating citrus. Mecca “processes” citrus in its “fresh fruit form” (discussed more fully below). Mecca intends to convert its property and facilities for the purpose of growing, processing or dispensing medical marijuana if its application for an MMTC license is approved. Mecca contends the citrus preference in the Proposed Rule needs further clarification. Mecca also asserts the evaluation and scoring system with respect to the citrus preference constitutes an invalid exercise of the Department’s delegated legislative authority. The Scoring System The MMTC application has 16 separate sections. An applicant may be awarded up to 50 points on some sections, up to 100 points on other sections. The total number of points any application might receive is 1150, presuming a perfect score on each section. Each of the individual sections, whether for 50 or 100 points, is graded in accordance with an evaluation rubric. The rubric contains five categories of scores which are used by reviewers, allowing for a range of points in each section. The five categories each have a range depending on whether the section allows 50 or 100 points. The rubric directs that a category 5 response could be awarded between 40 and 50 points in the 50-point sections, or between 80 and 100 points in a 100-point section. A category 4 response could get between 30 and 39 points (or 60 to 79 points); a category 3 could award 20 to 29 points (or 40 to 59 points); a category 2 could be worth 10 to 19 points (or 20 to 39 points); and a category 1 might award 0 to 9 points (or 0 to 19 points). Thus, an applicant may be awarded points anywhere within the range in each category for each section of the application. By way of example, category 5 under the rubric (wherein a reviewer may give an application 40 to 50 or 80 to 100 points) directs the reviewer as follows: Applicant addressed all items. When necessary, each item has multiple, specific examples of experience and knowledge. Experience and knowledge are connected to specific, identifiable people in the application. Plans are clear, detailed, well documented, and thorough. All charts, photographs, maps, sketches, and other supplemental information are clear and legible. When necessary, applicant provides full documentation for representations of future performance. Responses related to financial reflect robust financial resources and clear lines of authority within the organizations. By comparison, under Category 3, which could award 20 to 29 or 40 to 59 points, the rubric directs the reviewer to consider: Either: Applicant responded to all items. Applicant responds to items addressing experience and knowledge, though answers tend to lack specificity. Plans are provided, but are lacking in clarity, documentation, or thoroughness. When necessary, some supplemental information is provided. Responses related to financials do not reflect robust financial resources, but do not raise doubts of applicant’s financial viability, or the organization has unclear lines of authority, or; Most responses are sufficient to be considered Category 4 or 5 Responses, but applicant fails to address some items. Favero asserts that allowing a reviewer to award points from an allowable range gives unbridled discretion to the Department. The argument misses the point that the ranges in each category direct the reviewer on how to score, while allowing some leeway in determining which applications are slightly better or worse than their competitors. Depending on the strength or weakness of one applicant’s response vis-à-vis another applicant, it is reasonable to assign more or fewer points in a comparative review. The rubric is quite descriptive and allows for a nuanced review of responses by the Department reviewers. The Preference The Preference Statute asserts a preference “for up to two of the licenses issued,” i.e., past tense. There are no licenses “issued” during the application review process, so the preference is actually assigned before licensure. The Preference Statute is somewhat confusing in this regard. The Proposed Rule attempts to reconcile this discrepancy by assigning preference points as a part of the application review process, while still approving the most qualified applicants. That approach is reasonable and has merit; it allows the preference to be assigned but does not attempt to insert it into the actual licensure process. The Proposed Rule assigns the preference points at the end of the review, i.e., after an application receives its “total score.” Thus, an applicant could conceivably be awarded 1185 points on the 0 to 1150 point scale. Regardless of how the points are assigned, Favero contends that the 35 preference points are too insignificant as compared to a possible (perfect) score of 1150 during application review. That number of points (35) would be only about three percent of a perfect score. The lower the average scores of all applications, however, the more the 35 points might come into play. If all applicants received an average score of 575 total points, the preference points would be twice as important as compared to perfect 1150 scores. The assignment of the preference points only after totaling the scores is a legitimate and acceptable method. Taking the 16 sections of the application separately, 35 points assigned in any one section could be quite significant. In fact, the Department arrived at the 35 points by taking the average number of possible points per section, i.e., 72, and assigning approximately half of that amount to reach the 35- point preference. The preference points are not just an arbitrary number assigned by the Department. Favero also objects that the Proposed Rule only assigns the 35 preference points to the two highest scoring, eligible applicants, i.e., those who will convert a citrus facility to process medical marijuana. If those two eligible applicants were more than 35 points below other, non-eligible applicants’ scores, assignment of the preference points would not result in the approval of any eligible applicants. The plain language in the Preference Statute and the Proposed Rule allows for a preference of “up to two” applicants. There is, therefore, no mandate that any applicants must receive the preference. While the Legislature can be presumed to have wanted preference points to be awarded (else why would the Preference Statute exist?), the language of the statute merely limits the number of entities which could get such a preference. The Department, interpreting a statute it is charged with implementing, interprets section 381.986(8)(a)3. to mean the issuance of available licenses to as many as two entities which are eligible for the preference. The Proposed Rule allows the Department to assess an applicant’s entitlement to the preference, to assign the preference, and to meet its statutory obligation. Property versus Facility The Legislature clearly intended to give a preference to applicants who “own . . . facilities that are, or were, used for canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus . . . and will use or convert the . . . facilities for the processing of medical marijuana.” The Legislature failed, however, to provide guidance by way of definitions. While the Legislature chose the words “facility or facilities” in the Preference Statute, the Department complicated the issue by using the word “property” for the most part, but also using the words “facility” and “facilities” at times. Favero contends that a property is much broader in scope than a facility, and the Department therefore exceeded its delegated legislative authority. The Department argues that facilities used to process citrus must be located on some property, obviously. But, facilities located on a property might be leased, so that the fee simple owner of the property is different from the leaseholder of that facility. Thus, if an applicant for a medical marijuana treatment center license wants to avail itself of the preference, it would need to own the facility. Whether that means the applicant must own the property on which the facility is located is not clear in the Preference Statute or in the Proposed Rule. The Department argues that the way to show ownership of a facility is by way of a deed to the property on which the facility is located. In fact, Favero will use a warranty deed to prove ownership of the facilities it purchased in order to obtain the preference. But if Favero purchased land on which citrus had been grown but not processed, i.e., if there had been no facilities on the land to can, concentrate or otherwise process the fruit, except in fresh fruit form, the preference would not apply. And if an applicant obtained a leasehold interest in a facility, it would not be able to “show ownership” by way of a deed to the property. The Preference Statute requires the applicant to convert the facility in order to gain the preference. It is unclear how a piece of unimproved property can be “converted” to another use; land is land. This begs the question of whether growing citrus on a piece of property, and then removing all the citrus trees in order to grow medical marijuana, is a “conversion” of a facility as contemplated by the Legislature. Neither the Preference Statute nor the Proposed Rule contain any definitional assistance to answer that question. An important question to be answered is whether the growing of citrus constitutes “processing” as alluded to by the Legislature. The Preference Statute provides no definition of the word. The Citrus Code (chapter 601, Florida Statutes) also does not define “processing,” but does describe a “processor” of citrus as: ‘[A]ny person engaged within this state in the business of canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing citrus fruit for market other than for shipment in fresh fruit form.” § 601.03(32), Fla. Stat. (Emphasis added). Processing must therefore mean something other than merely growing citrus and packing it up for shipment. That being the case, a property where citrus is grown that is “converted” to a property growing marijuana would not afford an applicant a preference. There must be some “facility” that is or has been used to process citrus, i.e., doing something more with the raw product, in order to constitute “processing.” Therefore, a “packinghouse,” i.e., “[a]ny building, structure, or place where citrus fruit is packed or otherwise prepared for market or shipment in fresh fruit form,” would not be engaged in “processing” citrus. See § 601.03(29), Fla. Stat. Mecca, which owns property where citrus was grown, picked, graded, sorted, polished, cleaned and packaged for transfer “in fresh fruit form,” would not be a processor, either. Mecca owns a packinghouse only, not a processing facility as that term seems to be used by the Legislature. Its operations were not part of the “canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing citrus fruit other than for shipment in fresh fruit form.”
The Issue Whether Respondent, Ridge Island Groves, Inc., is liable to Petitioner, Orange Bend Harvesting, Inc., on a contract to purchase citrus fruit, and, if so, the amount owed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Orange Bend Harvesting, Inc. (Petitioner or Orange Bend), is a Florida for-profit corporation located in Leesburg, Florida, engaged in the business of citrus harvesting and management of citrus groves. Joyce D. Caldwell is the president and registered agent of Orange Bend. Ruben Caldwell and Cornelius Caldwell are Ms. Caldwell's brothers and co-owners of the business. Ruben Caldwell is Orange Bend's harvesting manager. Respondent, Ridge Island Groves, Inc. (Respondent or Ridge Island), is a Florida for-profit corporation headquartered in Haines City, Florida, engaged in the business of buying and packing fresh fruit for retail sale and gift-fruit shipping. Ridge Island is known in the industry as a "packing house." Although Ridge Island produces some fruit juice for sample and sale at the packing house, Ridge Island is not a juice processing plant. Respondent, Old Surety Insurance Company, holds the bond for Ridge Island, which has been assigned to the Department as security pursuant to section 601.61, Florida Statutes (2014). Orange Bend and Ridge Island first transacted business in 2010, and Ridge Island purchased fruit from Orange Bend "off and on" from 2010 through 2014. On October 17, 2014, Respondent entered into a contract with Petitioner to purchase fruit from five different citrus groves. The "Standard Fruit Contract" provided that Respondent would purchase from Petitioner the "entire crop of citrus fruit blooming in the year 2014 and merchantable at the time of picking on the grove blocks listed below . . . on the following terms." More specifically, Respondent was entitled to purchase the following described citrus from Petitioner: Variety Block Approximate number of boxes Price per unit Moving Date Red Navels Ronco 300+/- $15 on tree 12/31/14 Red Navels Sweet Blossom 1500+/- $20 on tree 12/31/14 Navels Powers 400+/- $15 on tree 12/31/14 Navels YMCA 400+/- $15 on tree 12/31/15 Satsuma Weatherspoon 400+/- $12 on tree 01/31/15 Prior to entering into the contract, Mr. Ritch visited the named grove blocks with Ruben Caldwell, inspected the blocks, and estimated the number of boxes to be picked from each block. The two men agreed on the price for each type of fruit. Ridge Island paid Orange Bend $2,500 in deposit on the contract. Pursuant to the contract, Orange Bend was responsible to "pick and haul" the fruit only from the Sweet Blossom grove. Respondent was responsible to pick and haul from the remaining groves. In the industry, the "on tree" price for fruit does not include the harvester's cost to pick and haul. If the harvester is to be paid his or her pick-and-haul costs, the pick-and-haul price is separate from the "on tree" price. Orange Bend and Ridge Island agreed on a pick-and-haul price of $3.25 per box. Orange Bend picked the Sweet Blossom block on December 8, 2014, yielding 225 boxes of red navels, which Orange Bend delivered to Ridge Island. Orange Bend picked the Sweet Blossom block again on December 9, 2014, and delivered another 217 boxes to Ridge Island. These first two deliveries "packed out" at nearly 100 percent, meaning there were few eliminations from the load. Citrus intended for the fresh market must be visually appealing, as well as free from insects, disease, and other damage. Fruit that is discolored, diseased, or damaged is eliminated from the packed fruit because it is unsuitable for the fresh fruit market. Ridge Island paid Orange Bend the full contract price per box for the first two deliveries of red navels from the Sweet Blossom block. Orange Bend picked the Sweet Blossom block again on December 26, 2014, yielding 447 boxes of red navels, which were delivered to Ridge Island. This delivery packed out at around 50 percent. Mr. Ritch sold the eliminations to a juice processer in Peace River, Florida.1/ Ridge Island paid Orange Bend the pick-and-haul price of $3.25 per box for eliminations from Orange Bend's deliveries of red navels from the Sweet Blossom block. Decisions regarding eliminations are made by the packing house. Generally, a harvester is unaware of the packing rate of fruit delivered. Ruben Caldwell contacted Mr. Ritch via text message on January 1, 2015, and asked whether Ridge Island was ready for another shipment of red navels from Sweet Blossom. Mr. Caldwell indicated the growers were anxious to get the fruit off the tree. Mr. Ritch responded, as follows: The last load of red navels packed out less than 50%. I tried degreening them but the greening fruit would not color. You can bring me another load but I just want you to know that the greening fruit will only return the cost of the pick and haul. Orange Bend picked the Sweet Blossom block several times between January 5 and 14, 2015, delivering an additional 1,295 boxes of fruit to Ridge Island. Ridge Island paid Orange Bend the contract price for 679 boxes. Orange Bend claims it is owed $16,820 from Ridge Island under the contract for red navels from the Sweet Blossom block. Ridge Island picked the YMCA block on January 15, 2015. The pick yielded 216 boxes of navels, of which 169 were eliminations. Ridge Island paid Orange Bend $705 for 47 boxes at $15 per box. Ridge Island picked the Powers block on November 15, 2014, and January 15, 2015. The picks yielded 284 boxes of navels, of which 119 were eliminations. Ridge Island paid Orange Bend $4,260 for 165 boxes at $15 per box. Ridge Island picked the Ronco block in February 2015.2/ Ridge Island picked 91 boxes, of which 62 boxes were eliminations, and paid the block owner, rather than Orange Bend, for 29 boxes at $15 per box. No evidence was introduced regarding whether the Weatherspoon block was picked by either party or whether Ridge Island paid any amount to Orange Bend under the contract for satsumas from the Weatherspoon block. Orange Bend maintains Ridge Island owes $27,540 for boxes of fruit picked by, or otherwise delivered to, Ridge Island, pursuant to the contract for fruit from the YMCA, Powers, and Ronco blocks. Orange Bend contends that the "on the tree" price quoted in the contract obligated Ridge Island to purchase every piece of fruit on the trees in the specified blocks and to assume the cost of eliminations. Ridge Island contends it was obligated to purchase only the fruit which was "merchantable at the time of picking," pursuant to the contract, and that the greening fruit was not merchantable. Petitioner offered the testimony of Jerry Mincey, owner of Southern Citrus Growers, who has operated as a harvester, fruit buyer, grove manager, and intermediary in the Florida citrus industry at various times throughout the past 50 years. Mr. Mincey testified that when a packing house buys fruit "on the tree," the packing house assumes all costs, including eliminations, as well as pick and haul. However, Mr. Mincey also testified that, while a buyer may make an offer to buy a crop "in bulk" (i.e., $x for the entire crop), the industry standard is "on the tree." The undersigned fails to see the difference between "in bulk" and "on the tree" under Petitioner's interpretation. If "on the tree" means the buyer is purchasing every piece of fruit produced on the trees in the specified block (blocks are just sections of groves), as Petitioner contends, the "in bulk" option would be rendered meaningless. Further, Petitioner's interpretation is contrary to the plain language of the contract, which entitles Respondent to the "entire crop of citrus fruit blooming in the year 2014 and merchantable at the time of picking." If Respondent was obligated to purchase all fruit on the trees in the named blocks, the phrase "and merchantable" would be meaningless. Having weighed all the testimony and evidence introduced, the undersigned finds the "on the tree" price in the subject contract means the buyer assumes the pick-and-haul costs. In the case at hand, Ridge Island purchased fruit in the Ronco, Powers, and YMCA blocks, absorbing its own costs to pick and haul the fruit. Ridge Island paid Orange Bend for Orange Bend's pick and haul costs for deliveries of fruit from the Sweet Blossom block. Pursuant to the contract, Ridge Island contracted for merchantable fruit. The contract does not define the term "merchantable." Citrus greening, or greening, is by all accounts a devastating disease caused by bacteria-infected insects. Trees affected with greening produce hard, knotty, fruit, which never fully colors (i.e., remains green on the bottom, or bottom half, of the fruit). Greening fruit is not fit for the purpose of fresh fruit packaging and gift shipping. Petitioner challenged Respondent's contention that fruit from the Sweet Blossom block was infected with greening. Petitioner presented the testimony of Mr. Mincey on this point. Mr. Mincey testified that he inspected the Sweet Blossom block in early October and made an offer to buy the navels for $18 per box. Mr. Mincey was back in the block in early November and testified that, although the tangerines in that grove were infected with greening, he saw no problem with the navels, which were of good size and on which color was beginning to break. On cross-examination however, Mr. Mincey admitted that, upon inspection, the red navel trees in the Sweet Blossom block did show some signs of greening. Further, Mr. Mincey testified that greening is a devastating disease that has infected almost every tree in Florida. Greening does not manifest itself early in the ripening process. While the fruit may color at the top, it usually does not color all the way to the bottom. Thus, a color break on the fruit in early November is not proof that the trees were not affected by greening. Despite the fact that some of the blocks were not picked by the moving date specified in the contract, neither party objected. In fact, Mr. Ritch testified that the fruit was late maturing throughout the region. Neither party ever terminated the subject contract.
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 approving the claim of Orange Bend Harvesting, Inc., against Ridge Island Groves, Inc., in the amount of $435. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 20th day of August, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent Clark's Country Farmers Market, Inc. owes Petitioner a sum of money for shipments of citrus fruit.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Parties and Their Problem Spyke's Grove and Clark's are "citrus fruit dealers" operating within the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. As a wholesale shipper, Spyke's Grove packages and arranges for delivery of citrus products pursuant to purchase orders that retail sellers such as Clark's submit. The packages typically are labeled with the retail seller's name, and thus the retail buyer (and the recipient, if the citrus is purchased as a gift) usually will not be aware of Spyke's Grove's involvement. The instant case involves a series of orders that Clark's placed with Spyke's Grove between October and December 1999 for packages of gift fruit. Under a number of informal, largely unwritten contracts, Spyke's Grove agreed, each time it received an order from Clark's, to ship a gift fruit box or basket to the donee designated by Clark's' retail customer, for which fruit shipment Clark's agreed to pay Spyke's Grove. Spyke's Grove alleges that Clark's failed to pay in full for all of the gift fruit packages that Clark's ordered and Spyke's Grove duly shipped. Clark's contends (though not precisely in these terms) that Spyke's Grove materially breached the contracts, thereby discharging Clark's from further performance thereunder. The Transactions From mid-October 1999 until around December 12, 1999, Clark's faxed or e-mailed to Spyke's Grove approximately 350 individual orders for gift fruit packages. Among other information, each order consisted of a shipping label that identified the product (e.g. the type of gift box or basket), the intended recipient, and the destination. Spyke's Grove manifested its intent to fill these orders by faxing statements of acknowledgment to Clark's, by telephoning Clark's, or both. Although the many contracts that arose from these transactions were thus documented, the writings left much unsaid. For example, the parties did not explicitly agree in writing that Spyke's Grove would deliver the subject gift baskets to the donees before Christmas, nor did they make any express oral agreements to this effect.1 Further, the parties did not specifically agree that Spyke's Grove would be obligated to deliver the gift fruit into the hands of the donees and bear the risk of loss until such tender of delivery. Rather, the contracts between Spyke's Grove and Clark's were ordinary shipment contracts that required Spyke's Grove to put the goods into the possession of carriers (such as the U.S. Postal Service or United Parcel Service) who in due course would deliver the packages to the donees. For many weeks, until early December 1999, Clark's placed orders, and Spyke's Grove filled them, under the arrangement just described. The relationship was not completely trouble-free, for the parties had some problems with duplicate orders. Most, if not all, of these difficulties stemmed from the implementation of a computerized ordering system which allowed Clark's to "export" orders directly to Spyke's Grove's electronic database. The parties recognized at the time that errors were occurring, and they attempted contemporaneously to identify and purge unintended duplicates. Pursuant to the course of dealing between these parties, Spyke's Grove filled orders that were not affirmatively identified as errors prior to the scheduled shipment date. The Fire On the night of Sunday, December 12, 1999, a devastating fire at Spyke's Grove's premises caused substantial damage, temporarily disrupting its citrus packing and shipping operations at the peak of the holiday season. Working through and around the loss, Spyke's Grove soon recovered sufficiently to reopen for business. By around noon on Tuesday, December 14, 1999, its telephone service had been restored, and activities relating to shipping resumed on Friday, December 17, 1999. The Aftermath Meantime, Clark's contends, customers had begun calling Clark's on December 10, 1999, to complain that gift fruit packages were not being received as promised. None of the customers testified at hearing, however, and therefore no competent, non-hearsay evidence establishes the contents of their alleged out-of-court statements. On December 14, 1999, following several unsuccessful attempts to communicate with Spyke's Grove shortly after the fire (about which Clark's remained unaware), Denise Clark, acting on behalf of Clark's, reached Robert Spiece, a representative of Spyke's Grove, on his cell phone. At hearing, Ms. Clark and Mr. Spiece gave conflicting accounts as to the substance of their December 14, 1999, telephone conversation. Neither disputed, however, that during this conversation Ms. Clark and Mr. Spiece agreed, at Ms. Clark's request, that all orders of Clark's not yet shipped by Spyke's Grove would be canceled, effective immediately, as a result of the fire. Although Ms. Clark claimed that Mr. Spiece further informed her that Spyke's Grove could not identify which orders had been shipped, the factfinder does not believe that Mr. Spiece made such a sweeping negative statement. Rather, as Mr. Spiece explained at hearing, Ms. Clark probably was told that information regarding the filled orders would not be available that day. Without waiting for further information from Spyke's Grove, Clark's began calling its retail customers to ascertain whether they had received packages that were supposed to have been shipped by Spyke's Grove. Employees of Clark's who had participated in this process——which took four to five days—— testified at hearing about conversations between themselves and various customers. As uncorroborated hearsay, however, the out- of-court statements attributed to these customers were not competent substantial evidence upon which a relevant finding of fact, e.g. that any particular customer or customers had not received their gift fruit, could be based. Moreover, this hearsay evidence, even if competent, would still have been too anecdotal to establish persuasively any widespread failure on the part of the carriers to deliver the packages shipped by Spyke's Grove. On December 15, 1999, Spyke's Grove prepared three draft invoices for the gift fruit packages that Clark's had ordered and which Spyke's Grove had shipped before December 12, 1999. Numbered 1999113001, 1999121101, and 1999121201, the invoices sought payment of $688.72, $2,415.48, and $298.66, respectively. On the first page of Invoice #1999121201, Barbara Spiece, the President of Spyke's Grove, wrote: Some of these were lost in the fire. "A" day left in the morning. "Springfield" was on the floor to go out that night. I realize there are many duplicates in these shipped reports. We tried to watch for them but with different order numbers it was very difficult. Just cross them out [and] you will not be charged for them. I apologize for all of the problems we have had this season [illegible] wish you luck. These bills were faxed to, and received by, Clark's on December 16, 1999. Clark's did not pay the invoices, or dispute them, or cross out the unintended duplicate orders (as it had been invited to do) to effect a reduction in the outstanding balance. Instead, Clark's ignored Spyke's Grove's requests for payment. Not only that, in disregard of its existing contractual obligations and with no advance notice to Spyke's Grove, Clark's proceeded on its own to fill all of the orders that it had placed with Spyke's Grove before December 12, 1999——including those orders that Spyke's Grove, through its draft invoices, claimed to have shipped. Even after the fact, Clark's failed to inform Spyke's Grove that it had, in effect, repudiated its contractual promises to pay Spyke's Grove for the gift fruit packages already shipped as of December 12, 1999 (i.e. the orders not canceled on December 14, 1999). The Inevitable Dispute Having heard nothing from Clark's in response to its December 16, 1999, fax, Spyke's Grove sent its invoices out again, in final form, on January 25, 2000.2 This time, Ms. Spiece did not inscribe any instructions to cross out duplicates for a discount. Numbered 11063001 ($688.72), 11063002 ($2,449.14), and 11063003 ($195.52), these bills totaled $3,333.38. Each of these invoices contained the following boilerplate "terms": Net 14 days prompt payment is expected and appreciated. A 1 ½% monthly service charge (A.P.R. 18% per annum) may be charged on all past due accounts. Customer agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorneys [sic] fees and court costs, should collection efforts ever become necessary. Clark's did not remit payment or otherwise respond to Spyke's Grove's statements. Accordingly, on June 20, 2000, Spyke's Grove sent a letter to the Department requesting assistance. Clark's was provided a copy of this letter. Shortly thereafter, Spyke's Grove filed a Complaint with the Department, initiating the instant proceeding. Ultimate Factual Determinations Clark's refusal to pay for the goods ordered from and shipped by Spyke's Grove constituted a breach of the contracts between the parties. Spyke's Grove did not materially breach the agreements. Further, Clark's did not object, within a reasonable period of time, to the statements of account that Spyke's Grove rendered preliminarily on December 16, 1999, and finally on January 25, 2000. Accordingly, these invoices amount to an account stated concerning the transactions between the parties. Clark's failed to overcome the presumption of correctness that attaches to an account stated, either by proving fraud, mistake, or error. Spyke's Grove has suffered an injury as a result of Clark's' breach. Spyke's Grove's damages consist of the principal amount of the debt together with pre-award interest at the statutory rate. Accordingly, Spyke's Grove is entitled to recover the following amounts from Clark's: Principal Due Date Statutory Interest $3,333.38 2/08/99 $ 298.66 (2/08/00 - 12/31/00) $ 335.56 (1/01/01 - 11/30/01) $3,333.38 $ 634.22 Interest will continue to accrue on the outstanding balance of $3,333.38 in the amount of $1.00 per day from December 1, 2001, until the date of the final order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order awarding Spyke's Grove the sum of $3,333.38, together with pre- award interest in the amount of $634.22 (through November 30, 2001), plus additional interest from December 1, 2001, until the date of the final order, which will accrue in the amount of $1.00 per day. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 29th day of November, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Citrus Hill Manufacturing Company (Citrus Hill) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Proctor and Gamble. Citrus Hill is in the business of producing, manufacturing, packaging and distributing citrus products throughout the United States. It's main product has been "Select" orange juice which is 100 percent orange juice. Its principle manufacturing facility is located in Frostproof, Florida. While Citrus Hill has four other manufacturing sites outside the State of Florida, its Florida plant is the only facility for manufacturing frozen products. While it can produce chilled products at its plants located outside Florida, Citrus Hill's Florida plant is necessary to supply the demand for its chilled products on a national basis. In an effort to expand its market, Citrus Hill developed three products which it produces and packs at its plant in Frostproof, Florida. These products are and have been labeled as follows: "Lite Citrus Hill Orange Juice Beverage 60 percent Orange Juice," "Lite Citrus Hill Grapefruit Juice Beverage 45 percent Grapefruit Juice," and "Plus Calcium Citrus Hill, Calcium Fortified Grapefruit Juice Beverage - 60 percent Grapefruit Juice." The "lite" beverages are reduced calorie diluted juice beverages with the addition of Nutrasweet. The third product is a diluted grapefruit juice beverage fortified with calcium. By a letter dated March 19, 1987, the Department of Citrus ordered Citrus Hill to change its diluted citrus products labels and informed Citrus Hill that the Department would enforce Rule 20-66.001(4), Florida Administrative Code. That rule provides "Labels for diluted citrus products shall not include the word "juice" in the name of the product." By a Final Order entered this same date, that Rule was declared to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. As noted above, Citrus Hill markets and sells its product line throughout the United States. It desires to utilize the names of its diluted juice products as indicated in paragraph two above for three reasons. First, Citrus Hill believes that its labeling is in compliance with federal law. Second, it believes that a product name which includes the word "juice" more fully informs the consumer of the nature of the product because it is more exact, descriptive and less ambiguous than any name not using the word "juice," such as "drink," "ade," or "beverage." Third, Citrus Hill fears that if it were unable to disclose through its product name that the product is primarily a juice product, it would be placed at a competitive disadvantage in the national marketplace where non-Florida producers of similar products would not be bound by the challenged Rule's ban on the use of the word "juice" in the name of diluted juice products. While Citrus Hill could move its packaging facilities outside the state and utilize two product labels (one for Florida shipment and one for the non-Florida market), this alternative would be extremely expensive and would constitute a "distribution nightmare." Many distributors and large retail grocery stores work in multi-state regions and may not be willing to segregate and keep track of petitioner's different product labels for shipment in Florida and in non-Florida states. No other state in the United States prohibits the word "juice" in the labeling of diluted citrus juice products. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, the subject of proper labeling of diluted fruit juice beverages was under discussion by both the Florida Department of Citrus and the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The FDA ultimately rejected the proposal of prohibiting the word "juice" from the name of any product that was not 100 percent pure juice, and also rejected the approach of defining different products through "standards of identity." This latter method of labeling products would have defined a product as "fades" only if containing more than 10 percent, but less than 20 percent, juice, and various other category names based upon the percentage of fruit juice contained in the product. The prohibition against the word "juice" and the "standards of identity" proposals for the labeling of diluted juice products were rejected by the FDA in favor of a common or usual name approach, with a percent declaration of any characterizing ingredient. The pertinent federal regulations addressing the labeling of food products are contained in 21 C.F.R. Chapter 1. The more general regulation appears in 21 C.F.R. 102.5(a) and (b), and states, in pertinent part, as follows: "Section 102.5 General Principles. The common or usual name of a food ... shall accurately identify or describe, in as simple and direct terms as possible, the basic nature of the food or its characterizing properties or ingredients. The name shall be uniform among all identical or similar products and may not be confusingly similar to the name of any other food that is not reasonably encompassed within the same name. Each class or subclass of food shall be given its own common or usual name that states, in clear terms, what it is in a way that distinguishes it from different foods. The common or usual name of a food shall include the percentage(s) of any characterizing ingredient(s) or component(s) when the . component(s) ... has a material bearing on ... consumer acceptance or when the labeling ... may otherwise create an erroneous impression that such ... component(s) is present in an amount greater than is actually the case. The following requirements shall apply unless modified by a specific regulation in Subpart B of this part. The percentage of a characterizing ingredient or component shall be declared on the basis of its quantity in the finished product... The percentage of a characterizing ingredient or component shall be declared by the words "containing (or contains) percent (or %) ---" ... with the first blank filled in with the percentage expressed as a whole number not greater than the actual percentage of the ingredient or component named and the second blank filled in with the common or usual name of the ingredient or component." The FDA has also promulgated regulations dealing with the labeling of specific nonstandardized foods, including diluted orange juice beverages and diluted fruit or vegetable juice beverages other than diluted orange juice beverages. With respect to diluted orange juice beverages, 21 C.F.R. Section provides as follows: "102.32. Diluted Orange Juice Beverages. The common or usual name of a non- carbonated beverage containing less than 100 percent and more than 0 percent orange juice shall be as follows: A descriptive name for the product meeting the requirements of Section 102.5(a)(e.g., diluted orange juice beverage or another descriptive phrase), and A statement of the percent of each juice contained in the beverage in the manner set forth in Section 102.5(b)(2). The percent of the juice shall be declared in 5 percent increments, expressed as a multiple of five not greater than the actual percentage of orange juice in the product, except that the percent of orange juice in products containing more than 0 percent but less than 5-percent orange juice shall be declared in the statement as "less than 5" percent." Diluted fruit or vegetable juice beverages other than diluted orange juice beverages are the subject of 21 C.F.R. Section 102.33, 1/ which provides as follows: "102.33 Diluted fruit or vegetable juice beverages other than diluted orange juice beverages. The common or usual name of a non- carbonated beverage containing less than 100 percent and more than zero percent fruit or vegetable juice(s), other than only orange juice, shall be as follows: A descriptive name meeting the requirements of Section 102.5(a)(e.g., "diluted grape juice beverage", "grape juice drink", or another descriptive phrase) and A statement of the percent of each juice contained in the beverage in the manner set forth in Section 102.5(b)(2). The percent of the juice shall be declared in five percent increments, expressed as a multiple of five not greater than the actual percentage of juice in the beverage except that the percentage of any juice in beverages containing more than zero percent but less than 5 percent of that juice shall be declared in the statement as "less than 5 percent." The Department of Citrus has conducted two consumer surveys for the purpose of determining whether the word "juice" in a product name of a diluted citrus juice product is confusing or misleading. The Drossler study was conducted in 1972, and concluded that consumers are confused by the word "juice." However, that conclusion appears to be founded on the premise that the only proper use of the word "juice" is in the technical sense of "100 percent pure juice." In other words, what was measured in the survey was the consumer's failure to use the word "juice" in a limited sense to mean "100 percent pure juice." The surveyed consumer was asked to look at several products, and then state "what kind of product is this?" The products viewed consisted of several different dairy products and a citrus beverage. If the consumer used the word "juice" to describe the kind of product pointed to, he was treated as being confused if the product was less than 100 percent juice. No follow-up questions were asked concerning the consumer's understanding of the content of the product. The Chelsea study was conducted at the request of the Department of Citrus in 1987. It, too, concludes that there would be less consumer confusion if the word "juice" were eliminated from products comprised of less than 100 percent pure citrus juice. However, there was evidence that this study attempted to address too many issues, including consumer preferences, and that "question contamination" could well have occurred. This refers to the intentional or unintentional biasing of the interviewees by the ordering or phraseology of the questions asked. Both the Burke study and the Chelsea study indicate that consumers are not confused by a beverage label using the word juice in the product name when it is accompanied by the declaration of the percentage of juice contained in the product. The Burke study was conducted on behalf of the petitioner in 1987. After conducting interviews of 1200 people from all age groups in six different cities throughout the United States, it concluded that there was no significant difference in consumer confusion between the use of the word "juice" and "beverage" in the product name when the percentage of citrus juice content is indicated on the label. In other words, whether the label identified the product as a "juice beverage" or a "beverage," the respondents were able to determine the amount of actual juice contained in the product.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Citrus rescind its order or directive to the petitioner to discontinue the use of the word "juice" in its labels for diluted citrus juice beverages. Respectfully submitted and entered this 9th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1987.
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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent citrus dealer owes Petitioner citrus producer a sum of money for grapefruits that Respondent harvested from Petitioner’s grove.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Sunrise Citrus Groves, Inc. (“Sunrise”) is a producer of citrus, meaning that it grows citrus in this state for market. It is also a Florida-licensed citrus fruit dealer operating within the Department’s regulatory jurisdiction. Tuxedo Fruit Company (“Tuxedo”) is a Florida-licensed citrus fruit dealer. On or about October 18, 2000, Sunrise and Tuxedo entered into a contract under which Tuxedo agreed to harvest “flame” grapefruits from Sunrise’s grove known as “Gulfstream.” are a variety of grapefruit; the varieties are distinguished by the color of the fruit’s meat, e.g. red, ruby, pink.) Tuxedo agreed to pay $4.00 per box of fruit harvested at the Gulfstream grove. Between October 16, 2000 and March 14, 2001, Tuxedo harvested 5,808 boxes of flame grapefruits pursuant to its contract with Sunrise. Accordingly, Tuxedo was obligated to pay Sunrise $23,232 for the fruit. Tuxedo did not pay for the grapefruits harvested from the Gulfstream grove. On October 11, 2001, Sunrise sent Tuxedo an invoice for the past due amount of $23,232. Tuxedo did not object to this statement of account. At hearing, Tuxedo admitted the above facts. Tuxedo’s position was that Sunrise had breached a separate contract relating to red grapefruits which Tuxedo had agreed to harvest from a grove called “Sun Rock.” As a result of this alleged breach, Tuxedo claimed to have suffered damages exceeding the amount sought by Sunrise. It is not necessary to make detailed findings of fact concerning the Sun Rock transaction, however, because the undersigned has concluded that the alleged breach of contract action that Tuxedo attempted to prove is not properly before the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”). Ultimate Factual Determination Tuxedo failed to pay for the citrus fruit harvested from the Gulfstream grove that was the subject of a contract between Sunrise and Tuxedo. Sunrise performed all of its duties under that contract and is not in breach thereof. Tuxedo, therefore, is indebted to Sunrise in the amount of $23,232. CONSLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Chapter 601, Florida Statutes, is known as "The Florida Citrus Code of 1949." Section 601.01, Florida Statutes. "Citrus fruit" is defined in Section 601.03(7), Florida Statutes, as all varieties and regulated hybrids of citrus fruit and also means processed citrus products containing 20 percent or more citrus fruit or citrus fruit juice, but, for the purposes of this chapter, shall not mean limes, lemons, marmalade, jellies, preserves, candies, or citrus hybrids for which no specific standards have been established by the Department of Citrus. Additionally, the term “grapefruit” is defined to mean “the fruit Citrus paradisi Macf., commonly called grapefruit and shall include white, red, and pink meated varieties[.]” Section 601.03(22), Florida Statutes. A "citrus fruit dealer" is defined in Section 601.03(8), Florida Statutes, as any consignor, commission merchant, consignment shipper, cash buyer, broker, association, cooperative association, express or gift fruit shipper, or person who in any manner makes or attempts to make money or other thing of value on citrus fruit in any manner whatsoever, other than of growing or producing citrus fruit, but the term shall not include retail establishments whose sales are direct to consumers and not for resale or persons or firms trading solely in citrus futures contracts on a regulated commodity exchange. Both Sunrise and Tuxedo are citrus fruit dealers under this definition. Sunrise also falls within the definition of “producer.” See Section 601.03(29), Florida Statutes (defining the term as “any person growing or producing citrus in this state for market”). Citrus fruit dealers are required to be licensed by the Department in order to transact business in Florida. Section 601.55(1), Florida Statutes. As a condition of obtaining a license, such dealers are required to provide a cash bond or a certificate of deposit or a surety bond in an amount to be determined by the Department "for the use and benefit of every producer and of every citrus fruit dealer with whom the dealer deals in the purchase, handling, sale, and accounting of purchases and sales of citrus fruit." Section 601.61(3), Florida Statutes. Section 601.65, Florida Statutes, provides that "[i]f any licensed citrus fruit dealer violates any provision of this chapter, such dealer shall be liable to the person allegedly injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence of such violation." This liability may be adjudicated in an administrative action brought before the Department or in a "judicial suit at law in a court of competent jurisdiction." Id. Section 601.64(4), Florida Statutes, defines as an "unlawful act" by a citrus fruit dealer the failure to pay promptly and fully, as promised, for any citrus fruit which is the subject of a transaction relating to the purchase and sale of such goods. Any person may file a complaint with the Department alleging a violation of the provisions of Chapter 601, Florida Statutes, by a citrus fruit dealer. Section 601.66(1), Florida Statutes. The Department is charged with the responsibilities of determining whether the allegations of the complaint have been established and adjudicating the amount of indebtedness or damages owed by the citrus fruit dealer. Section 601.66(5), Florida Statutes. If the complaining party proves its case, the Department shall "fix a reasonable time within which said indebtedness shall be paid by the [citrus fruit] dealer." Thereafter, if the dealer does not pay within the time specified by the Department, the Department shall obtain payment of the damages from the dealer's surety company, up to the amount of the bond. Section 601.66(5) and (6), Florida Statutes. Sunrise bore the burden of proving the allegations in its Complaint against Tuxedo by a preponderance of the evidence. See Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Career Service Commission, 289 So. 2d 412, 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Section 120.57(1)(j), Florida Statutes. Sunrise carried its burden of proving that Tuxedo has failed and refused to pay, as agreed, for citrus fruit that Tuxedo harvested from Sunrise’s Gulfstream grove. Tuxedo’s allegation that Sunrise breached a contract unrelated to the one upon which Sunrise has based its demand for payment constitutes an independent cause of action and claim for relief. See Storchwerke, GMBH v. Mr. Thiessen’s Wallpapering Supplies, Inc., 538 So. 2d 1382, 1383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). In the parlance of civil litigation, Tuxedo’s contentions would be called a counterclaim. See Haven Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Kirian, 579 So. 2d 730, 733 (Fla. 1991)(“A counterclaim is a cause of action that seeks affirmative relief[.]”). Had Sunrise elected to pursue its claim in circuit court pursuant to Section 601.65, Florida Statutes, rather than before the Department, then Tuxedo properly might have sought leave to bring its claim relating to the Sun Rock transaction as a permissive counterclaim. See Rule 1.170(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. But this is an administrative proceeding, and there exists no procedural vehicle through which Tuxedo may assert a permissive counterclaim for breach of contract. The question whether Tuxedo’s claim of breach is properly before DOAH is not merely procedural, but touches the fundamental consideration of subject matter jurisdiction. To be entitled to administrative remedies for Sunrise’s alleged breach of contract, Tuxedo must file a complaint with the agency having jurisdiction in the matter; it cannot directly initiate proceedings before DOAH. See Section 601.66, Florida Statutes. DOAH’s jurisdiction does not attach until the agency refers the dispute to this tribunal for adjudication. Tuxedo has not filed a complaint against Sunrise with the Department, and thus (obviously) the Department has not referred the matter to DOAH. Therefore, DOAH does not have jurisdiction to entertain Tuxedo’s claim for relief based on the alleged Sun Rock transaction. In the alternative, Tuxedo’s allegations arguably might be regarded——and reached——as an affirmative defense. See Kirian, 579 So. 2d at 733 (“[A]n affirmative defense defeats the plaintiff’s cause of action by a denial or confession and avoidance.”). Specifically, Tuxedo’s allegations, if established, might provide the basis for a set off, which is a recognized affirmative defense. See Kellogg v. Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot, P.A., 807 So. 2d 669, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D2811, 2001 WL 1504231, *4 n.2 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 28, 2001)(“A set-off is an affirmative defense arising out of a transaction extrinsic to a plaintiff’s cause of action.”). It is concluded, however, that because DOAH does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Tuxedo’s allegations as a counterclaim for breach of contract, the same allegations cannot simply be treated as an affirmative defense and adjudicated on that basis. To be heard, the defense of set off must be within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. of New York v. Walker, 9 So. 2d 361, 363 (Fla. 1942). A contrary ruling would permit Tuxedo to bring in through the back door a claim that was turned away at the front. Even if Tuxedo’s claim were cognizable as an affirmative defense, notwithstanding Tuxedo’s failure properly to initiate such claim pursuant to Section 601.66, Florida Statutes, the issue could not be reached for an independent reason: implied waiver. In the context of a civil suit, a party’s failure to allege an affirmative defense in its responsive pleading effects a waiver thereof. See Gause v. First Bank of Marianna, 457 So. 2d 582, 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)(“Affirmative defenses must be raised in the pleadings or they are waived.”). Since a dealer who disputes the allegations of a complaint filed with the Department under Section 601.66 is required by that statute to submit an answer in writing, it is concluded that a dealer-respondent, like a defendant in a civil lawsuit, waives any affirmative defenses not raised in his responsive pleading. Otherwise, a dealer-respondent could sandbag the claimant at final hearing. Having failed to plead the Sun Rock matter in its response to Sunrise’s complaint, Tuxedo waived the affirmative defense of set off.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order awarding Sunrise the sum of $23,232. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 1st day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: John Scarborough, General Manager Sunrise Citrus Groves, Inc. 2410 Southeast Bridge Road Hobe Sound, Florida 33455 John A. Scotto, President Tuxedo Fruit Company 1110 North 2nd Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Sharon Sergeant Continental Casualty Company CNA Plaza Floor 13-South Chicago, Illinois 60685 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 Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 500 Third Street Northwest Post Office Box 1072 Winter Haven, Florida 33882-1072
Findings Of Fact Based on the factual stipulations and the deposition testimony of Mr. Alfred Poucher, I hereby make the following findings of fact: During the 1982-1983 citrus fruit season Congen delivered various varieties of citrus fruit to Blue Prize. Congen is a grower as well as a processor, and the fruit which was delivered to Blue Prize was owned by Congen. During the 1982-1983 citrus season Blue Prize operated a fresh fruit packing house. The citrus fruit referred to in the preceding paragraph was delivered pursuant to an oral contract negotiated between Jack Neitzke on behalf of Congen and Alfred Poucher on behalf of Blue Prize. Neitzke served as general manager of Congen. Poucher served as president of Blue Prize. The contract provided that Congen would deliver citrus fruit to Blue Prize on an account sales basis and that Blue Prize would pay for the fruit in the following manner: For Novas delivered to Blue Prize by Congen and Packed by Blue Prize, Blue Prize agreed to pay an amount at least equal to the net return to Congen from its sale of Novas to A. S. Herlong during the same citrus season. Congen's sales to Herlong netted Congen $8.026 per packed box. For White Grapefruit delivered to Blue Prize by Congen, Blue Prize agreed to pay Congen the average net per box return Congen received during the same citrus season for White Grapefruit Congen sold for processing, inclusive of any applicable picking, roadside, and hauling charges incurred by Congen, for all field boxes delivered. The average return per box was $1.5475. For Temples, Hamlins, and Valencias delivered to Blue Prize by Congen, Blue Prize agreed to pay Congen for all field boxes delivered an amount at least equal to the average amount returned per box on the Citrus Belle processing plant seasonal pool. The Citrus Belle pool returned $.96 per pound of solids for early and mid-season fruit which includes Temples and Hamlins. The average pounds of solids per box for Temples was 6.1052, and the average pounds of solids per box for Hamlins was 5.4. The pool returned $1.10 per pound of solids for Valencias, and the average pounds of solids per box for Valencias was 6.0137. Congen agreed to give Blue Prize credit for all eliminations (fruit which could not be packed by Blue Prize as fresh fruit) which were either returned to Congen or which were sent to a processing plant and for which the proceeds from the processing plant were ultimately paid to Congen. The elimination credit was to be calculated according to the same formulae used by Congen to charge Blue Prize for the fruit. The Valencia eliminations totaled 4,038.63 pounds of solids. The Temple and Hamlin eliminations totaled 1,119.52 pounds of solids. The total elimination credit due Blue Prize was $5,517.23. During the 1982-1983 citrus season Congen delivered 5,920 field boxes of Novas, 920 field boxes of Temples, 1,380 field boxes of white Grapefruit, 120 field boxes of Hamlins, and 1,748 field boxes of Valencias to Blue Prize. 5,589 boxes of Novas, 682 boxes of Temples, 101 boxes of Hanlins, and 1,330 boxes of Valencias were packed. According to these figures and the agreed upon prices to be paid, Blue Prize owed Congen $44,857.31 for Novas which were packed, $5,462.769 for Temples which were delivered, $2,135.55 for white Grapefruit which were delivered, $622.080 for Hamlins which were delivered, and $11,597.753 for Valencias which were delivered. These amounts total $64,675.45. Blue Prize paid Congen $30,000 for the fruit delivered by Congen during the 1982-1983 citrus fruit season, and after giving Blue Prize credit for this amount and also giving Blue Prize credit for the eliminations and harvesting and trucking charges, the amount Blue Prize owes Congen is $25,278,86.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order concluding the Blue Prize Packers, Inc., is indebted to Congen Properties, Inc., in the total amount of $25,278.86, and ordering that the full amount of the debt be paid within 30 days from the date of the Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of March, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Richard Bates, Esquire Anderson & Rush 322 East Central Blvd. P.O. Box 2288 Orlando, Florida 32802 M. David Alexander, III, Esquire Post Office Box 2376 Bartow, Florida 33830 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 McDonald Insurance Agency, Inc. Post Office Box 940 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Blue Prize Packers, Inc. 1200 Highway 27, North Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Congen Properties, Inc. Post Office Box 847 Labelle, Florida 33935 Honorable Doyle A. Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
