Findings Of Fact From before January 1, 1974, until the time of the final hearing in this matter, petitioner owned a DC-6 airplane, During the calendar year 1974, this airplane was leased to Surinam Air Cargo for approximately a half dozen flights. Petitioner's employees, Messrs. Goodman, Davis and Williams, crewed the airplane back and forth between Miami and Surinam, in accordance with the unwritten agreement between petitioner and Surinam Air Cargo. On some or all of these flights, petitioner transported its own goods as well as Surinam Air Cargo's. The parties stipulated that the purchases listed in schedule B attached to joint exhibit No. 1 were made for the flights back and forth to Surinam. In September of 1975, petitioner entered into agreements with Paul H. Jones & Co., Inc., to lease the DC-6 for approximately four flights, some of which were agreed upon orally; the others were the subject of written agreements. All of the agreements contemplated that petitioner would furnish the airplane crew and petitioner's employees, Messrs. Goodman, Davis and Wright, did in fact operate the DC-6 while it was leased to Paul H. Jones & Co., Inc. Miami International Hatcheries, Inc. (MIH) deals in hatching eggs. CWT Farms of Gainesville, Georgia, is a principal supplier of eggs to MIH and has been for some time. Until the fall of 1975, MIH regularly shipped eggs it received from CWT Farms to Kingston, Jamaica, using the facilities of Pan American Airways or Air Jamaica, which are common carriers. On October 13, 1975, however, petitioner entered into a contract with CWT Farms, which was evidenced by two writings, joint exhibits Nos. 2 and 3. Joint exhibit No. 2 sets up a "proposed flight schedule every Monday and Thursday," requires petitioner "to arrange and pay for cargo insurance" and specifies the manner and amount of CWT Farms' payment to petitioner; payments (covering "all operational costs") vary with the weight of the cargo and are "due and payable at the completion of each flight." Joint exhibit No. 4 is a writing evidencing an extension of the original agreement to a date beyond December 31, 1976. Joint exhibit 3 contains, inter alia, a provision which recites "that the person responsible for the operational control of this aircraft during the term of this lease shall be CWT Farms." The provisions of joint exhibits Nos. 3 and 4 notwithstanding, there was from the beginning a clear understanding between Mr. Goodman, on behalf of petitioner, and Raymond H. Burch, on behalf of CWT Farms, that petitioner would hire the crew and that it was petitioner's "responsibility to take care of the crew and to fly the plane." Petitioner's exhibit No. 5, p. 12. Petitioner's employees, ordinarily Messrs. Goodman, Davis and Wright, did in fact fly the DC-6 twice a week from Miami to Kingston, Jamaica, and back. These employees looked for payment of their salaries to petitioner rather than to CWT Farms or to any predecessor lessee. Occasionally, petitioner transported to Jamaica goods belonging to firms other than CWT Farms, but petitioner did not transport its own cargo on the flights to Jamaica. In aviation jargon, a dry lease is an agreement, analogous to a bareboat charter in maritime law, under which the lessee of aircraft undertakes to furnish the crew and gasoline, takes responsibility for maintenance and pays a pro-rata fee for engine time. A wet lease, in contrast, is an agreement under which the lessor furnishes the crew and gasoline and takes responsibility for maintenance; there is no provision for engine time and no penalty for a failed engine. The Federal Aviation Administration imposes more stringent safety regulations on wet lessors of aircraft than on dry lessors. In February of 1977, the Federal Aviation Administration began an investigation of petitioner which resulted in the filing of a complaint against petitioner and others on April 15, 1977, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. United States of America v. Kimex, Inc., et al., No. 77-1267-CIV-JE. This proceeding eventuated in a stipulation of dismissal in which petitioner agreed to a civil penalty (partially suspended) of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) and admitted that, under the agreement with CWT Farms, it had "engaged in the carriage of property for compensation or hire in air commerce as a private carrier" and that the leases to CWT Farms "were 'wet leases'." During the period of the lease between petitioner and CWT Farms, MIH was normally in debt to CWT Farms because MIH did not pay in advance for the eggs it received from CWT Farms. At CWT Farms' behest, MIH paid petitioner moneys due petitioner from CWT Farms, in partial discharge of MIH's own obligations to CWT Farms. A practice developed under which MIH drew and delivered four checks to petitioner's employees before each flight, which, in the aggregate, constituted CWT Farms' payment to petitioner for the preceding flight. H. Goodman was the payee on one check, in the amount of one hundred seventy-five dollars ($175.00), C. Wright was the payee on one check in the amount of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00), R. Davis was the payee on one check, in the amount of one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00). These checks also operated to discharge part of petitioner's salary obligations to these employees. Kimex, Inc. was the payee on the fourth check, the amount of which varied, depending on the weight of the cargo petitioner had transported on the previous flight. In calculating the amount of the fourth check, the amount CWT Farms owed petitioner was first computed, and four hundred fifty dollars ($450.00) was then subtracted. Before each flight, MIH delivered eggs in cases, which weighed fifty-two (52) pounds each, to a freight loading company at Miami International Airport. Because MIH kept track of the number of cases it delivered, it was a simple matter to compute CWT Farms' obligation to petitioner, as specified in the lease, viz., "16 per pound for the minimum weight of 26,000 pounds to 30,000 pounds and 15 per pound from 30,001 pounds to 32,000 pounds." Joint exhibit 2. From this figure was subtracted the sum of the checks drawn in favor of petitioner's employees. This procedure obtained until some time after December 31, 1976. By the time of the hearing, however, petitioner's employees were paid with weekly pay checks which petitioner itself drew in their favor; and petitioner received lease payment checks which were not reduced by four hundred fifty dollars ($450.00). Before the change to the practice in effect at the time of the hearing, MIH caused Internal Revenue Service Forms 1099 to be prepared to reflect the total MIH payments to petitioner's employees for each year involved. Petitioner prepared W-2 Forms to reflect the salary moneys it paid to its employees directly for each year involved.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent reduce its proposed assessment to four percent of the total dollar cost of the items listed on schedule B attached to the notice of proposed assessment, together with applicable penalties and interest, if any. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX Paragraphs one, two, four through thirteen, fifteen and sixteen of petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance. Paragraph three of petitioner's proposed findings of fact recites that petitioner's lease to Jones & Co. was oral whereas the evidence was that the agreements with Jones & Co. with respect to some of the flights were reduced to writing. Paragraph fourteen of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, assuming that "direction or control" is intended to mean responsibility or authority for navigation of the aircraft. Paragraph one of respondent's proposed findings of fact has been rejected as unsupported by or contrary to the evidence. Petitioner employs Messrs. Goodman, Davis and Wright, Miss Goodman and several mechanics. Mr. Goodman, Mr. Davis and Miss Goodman are petitioner's corporate officers. Petitioner's stockholders are Mr. Davis, Mr. and Mrs. Goodman. The evidence did not establish who petitioner's directors are. Although the evidence showed that petitioner owned a DC-6 airplane based in Miami, it was not proven that petitioner had no other assets. Paragraph two of respondent's proposed findings of fact has been adopted in substance, insofar as relevant, except that there was no evidence that petitioner was exporting its own goods on the flights made pursuant to its agreements with Paul H. Jones & Co. Paragraphs three, four, five and six of respondent's proposed findings of fact have been adopted in substance, insofar as relevant. The final paragraph of respondent's proposed findings of fact lacks support in the evidence. For a given flight, CWT Farms would owe petitioner at least the agreed price for shipping 26,000 pounds of eggs, regardless of how few eggs were in fact shipped. On a given flight, CWT Farms could ship up to 32,000 pounds, but, if CWT Farms shipped less, petitioner sometimes transported eggs for other firms. The semiweekly flight schedule was set by mutual agreement between petitioner and CWT Farms. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Norman S. Segall, Esquire Suite 607, 100 Biscayne Tower 100 North Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. Michael A. Rubin, Esquire Suite 4-B 420 South Dixie Highway Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Mr. Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether or not Petitioners (complainants) are entitled to recover $5,640.19 or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and Respondent surety company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are growers of watermelons and qualify as "producers" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company is surety for Respondent Griffin d/b/a Quality. Petitioners' claims against the dealer and his bond are listed in the Amended Complaint in the following amounts and categories: 6-18-92 Inv. #657 45,580 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $2,279.00 Advance - 700.00 NWPB* - 9.12 $1,569.88 6-19-92 Inv. #668 2,490 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $ 124.50 (paid for 42,860 lbs. short 2,490 lbs.) NWPB* - .50 124.00 6-20-92 Inv. #695 6,818 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $ 340.90 (paid for 39,062 lbs. short 6,818 lbs.) NWPB* 1.36 339.54 6-20-92 Inv. @ #702 .05 39,880 lbs. Sangria melons lb. $1,994.00 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 7.98 Pmt. - 90.00 1,186.02 6-21-92 Inv. @ #706 .05 44,740 lbs. Sangria melons lb. $2,237.00 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 8.95 1,518.05 6-22-93 Inv. @ #716 .04 11,280 lbs. Crimson melons lb. NWPB* - 2.32 460.88 6-22-92 Inv. @ #709 .04 46,740 lbs. Crimson melons lb. $1,869.60 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 9.35 1,150.25 Deducted for #706 - 441.82 441.82 PAID 708.43 Total Claimed $5,640.19 *NWPB = National Watermelon Promotion Board Fee Petitioners and Respondent dealer have had an oral business relationship for four to five years. Both parties agree that their oral agreement initially called for a federal inspection to be done on each load if the load were refused in whole or in part by the ultimate recipient. Respondent Griffin contended that over the years there had been further oral agreements to "work out" or "ride out" small discrepancies or partial refusals of loads without resorting to federal inspections, the cost of which inspections could eliminate the entire profit on single loads. Petitioners denied that such an amended oral agreement was ever reached and further maintained that the amounts of the loads at issue herein could not be considered "small" by any interpretation. Respondent submitted no evidence as to what the relative terms, "large" and "small," mean in the industry. Consequently, it appears that there was never a meeting of the minds of the parties on the alleged oral contract amendments relied upon by Respondent. Respondent testified that in past years, prior to 1992, he had interpreted the term "ride it out" to mean that he would simply accept the hearsay statements of ultimate recipients that named poundages of melons were bad and he would let the ultimate recipients pay for only the melons they said were good. Respondent would thereafter absorb any losses himself, not passing on the loss by deducting any amount from the full amount he would normally pay to the growers within ten days. However, 1992 was such a bad year for melons that the Respondent dealer chose not to absorb the greater losses and passed them on to the growers by way of deductions on "settlement sheets." In 1992 Respondent sent Petitioners the settlement sheets with the deductions explained thereon with the net payments as much as thirty days after the ultimate sales. Upon the foregoing evidence, it appears that Respondent had established a course of business whereby Petitioners could reasonably have expected him to absorb any losses occasioned by Respondent's reliance on hearsay statements of the ultimate recipients concerning poor quality melons unless Respondent chose not to test the questionable melons with a federal inspection. Petitioners obtained Exhibit P-5 for load 657 at Respondent dealer's place of business, but were not certain it applied to the load Mr. Tucker claimed he delivered to Respondent on 6-18-92 because Mr. Tucker did not know his load number that day. The exhibit represents the weight ticket Petitioners believe applies to the load which Mr. Tucker claimed to have delivered to Respondent dealer on 6-18-92. However, the exhibit bears two other names, "Jones and Smith," not Petitioners' respective names of Tucker or Watson. It has "WACC" handwritten across it, which Mr. Tucker claimed signified the name of his watermelon field. The number "657" also has been handwritten across it. There is no evidence of who wrote any of this on the exhibit. Respondent denied that load 657 was received from Mr. Tucker. The exhibit shows a printed gross weight of 78,900 lbs., tare weight of 32,860 lbs. and net weight of 66,800 lbs. Net weights are supposed to signify the poundage of melons delivered to the dealer. Nothing on the exhibit matches Mr. Tucker's journal entry (Petitioners' Exhibit 3) of delivering 45,580 lbs. of watermelons to Respondent dealer on 6- 18-92. Mr. Tucker testified that he was never paid for his delivery. Respondent denied there was such a delivery and testified that he paid Jones and Smith for load 657. Petitioners have established no entitlement to their claim of $1,569.88 on Invoice 657. Petitioners' Exhibit P-4 represents two weight tickets secured from Respondent dealer's records that Petitioners contend apply to load 668. The first page has "45,350/6-19-92/Scott Tucker WACC" handwritten across it. None of the four poundages imprinted thereon match any of the amounts claimed by Petitioners for invoice 668, and subtracting amounts testified to also does not conform these figures to Petitioners' claim on load 668. The second page weight ticket shows a date of 6-18-92 and a weight of 34,260 lbs. It also does not match Petitioner's claim that they were owed for 45,350 lbs. but were paid for only 42,860 lbs., being paid 2,490 lbs. short. Exhibit P-8 is the 668 invoice/settlement sheet which Respondent provided to Petitioners and shows invoice 668 with date of 6-19-92, tare and pay weight of 42,860 lbs. at $.05/lb. for $2,143.00 less $8.57 melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB, see supra) for $2,134.43, less a $700.00 advance and $10.00 for packing straw for a total due Petitioners of $1,424.43 which Respondent has already paid. Petitioners have established no entitlement to their claim of $124.00 on Invoice 668. Petitioners Exhibit P-6 represents two weight tickets secured from Respondent dealer's records. The first page has "45,880 lbs./6-20-92/Scott Tucker Crimson WACC 695" handwritten across it. None of the printed gross, tare, or net weights thereon match any of the amounts claimed by Petitioners for invoice 695. The second page shows the date 6-20-92 and a printed net weight of 32,000 lbs. Respondent dealer provided Petitioners with Exhibit P-7, invoice/settlement sheet 695 dated 6-20-92 showing tare and pay weights of 39,062 lbs. priced at $.05/lb. totalling $1,953.10, less melon adv. assoc. (a/k/a NWPB) fee of $7.81, for $1,945.29, less $700.00 advanced, less $10.00 for packing straw for a total of $1,235.29. The foregoing do not support Petitioner Tucker's claim based on his journal entry (P-3) that he was entitled to be paid for 45,880 lbs. he claims he delivered that day instead of for 39,062 pounds (short by 6,818 pounds) with balance owing to him of $339.54. Respondent has paid what was owed on invoice 695. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 9 shows that Petitioner Tucker delivered 39,880 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-20-92 and Petitioner Watson received back from Respondent dealer an invoice/settlement sheet 702 showing 39,880 pounds @ $.05/lb. equalling $1,994.00 and that although $1,994.00 was owed Petitioners, Respondent thereafter subtracted for $800.00 worth of returned melons, a $700.00 advance, $7.98 for melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB), and $10.00 for packing straw, and that a balance was paid to Petitioners of only $90.00. This is arithmetically illogical. The subtractions total $1,517.98. Therefore, if all of Respondent's subtractions were legitimate, the total balance due Petitioners would have been $476.02. If the right to deduct for the $800.00 in returned melons were not substantiated by Respondent dealer, then Petitioners would be due $1,276.02. Since all parties acknowledge that $90.00 was already paid by Respondent dealer, then Petitioners are due $1,186.02 if Respondent did not substantiate the right to deduct the $800.00. Load 702 was "graded out," i.e. accepted as satisfactory, by a representative of Respondent dealer or a subsequent holder in interest when the melons were delivered by Petitioners to Respondent dealer. That fact creates the presumption that the melons were received in satisfactory condition by the Respondent dealer. Nothing persuasive has been put forth by the Respondent dealer to show that the situation concerning the melons' quality had changed by the time the load arrived at its final destination. Respondent got no federal inspection on this load and relied on hearsay statements by persons who did not testify as to some melons being inferior. In light of the standard arrangement of the parties over the whole course of their business dealings (see Findings of Fact 5-7 supra), Petitioners have proven entitlement to the amount claimed on load 702 of $1,186.02. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite 10 shows Petitioners Tucker and Watson delivered 44,740 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-21-92. At $.05/lb., Petitioners were owed $2,237.00, less melon adv. association fee (a/k/a NWPB) of $8.95, $700.00 for an advance, and $10.00 for straw. Those deductions are not at issue. Therefore, Petitioners would be owed $1,518.05, the amount claimed, from Respondent. However, the invoice also notes that Respondent made a $268.18 deduction for melons returned. Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1 purports to be a BB&W Farms Loading Sheet and Federal Inspection Sheet. Respondent offered this exhibit to show that only $68.18 was realized by him on load 706 which he attributed to Petitioner Watson. However, the federal inspector did not testify as to the results of the inspection, the inspection sheet itself is illegible as to "estimated total," the "estimated total" has been written in by another hand as "$62.60," and there was no explanation on the Composite Exhibit or in testimony as to how Respondent dealer came up with $200.00 in "return lumping charges" as also indicated on Exhibit R-1. Accordingly, Petitioners have established that with regard to load/invoice 706, they delivered watermelons worth $2,237.00 to Respondent dealer and Respondent dealer did not affirmatively establish that any melons were bad, despite the federal inspection sheet introduced in evidence. Petitioners have proven entitlement to their claim on invoice 706 for $1,518.05. However, Petitioners conceded that Respondent actually paid them $441.82 on invoice/settlement sheet 706. Therefore, they are only entitled to recoup a total of $1,076.23 on their claim for Invoice 706. In the course of formal hearing, Respondent dealer admitted that, with regard to load invoice 716, (Tucker) he did owe Petitioners $460.88 for 275 watermelons, and that it had not been paid purely due to clerical error. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 12 (Invoice and Weight Tickets 709, Watson) shows Petitioner Watson delivered 46,740 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-22-92 and at $.04 lb., Petitioners were owed $1,869.60, less appropriate deductions. Petitioners conceded that Respondent dealer appropriately deducted $9.35 for melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB), $700.00 for an advance, and $10.00 for packing straw, bringing the amount they were owed to $1,150.25. Petitioners and Respondent are in agreement the Respondent paid only $708.43 of the $1,150.25 owed on invoice/settlement sheet 709 because Respondent dealer also deducted from the amount owed on invoice 709 the $441.82 he had previously paid out on Invoice 706. See, Finding of Fact 13, supra. Since Petitioners have established that they were owed $1,518.05 on invoice 706 but were paid only $441.82 thereon, it appears that Petitioners should be paid $1,076.23 on Invoice 706 and realize nothing on Invoice 709.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order awarding Petitioners $1,186.02 on invoice 702, $1,076.23 on invoice 706, and $460.88 on invoice 716 for a total of $2,723.13, dismissing all other claimed amounts, and binding Respondents to pay the full amount of $2,723.13, which in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company's case shall be only to the extent of its bond. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Tucker and Phillip Watson Route 2 Box 280 Trenton, FL 32693 Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage Post Office Box 889 Immokalee, FL 33934 William J. Moore USF&G Post Office Box 31143 Tampa, FL 33631 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, MD 21203 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture Division of Marketing, Bureau of Licensure and Bond Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioners for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioners are producers and sellers of tomatoes. They own and operate Sunfresh Farms in Florida City, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products. The Controversy The instant case involves two separate transactions involving the sale of tomatoes pursuant to verbal agreements between Petitioners (as the sellers) and Respondent (as the buyer). Both transactions occurred in January of 1995. The First Transaction (Petitioners' Invoice Number 5270) Under the terms of the first of these two verbal agreements (First Agreement), Respondent agreed to purchase from Petitioners, and Petitioners agreed to sell to Respondent (FOB), 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes for $12.65 a box (which was the market price at the time). In accordance with the terms of the First Agreement, Petitioners delivered 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent (at Petitioners' loading dock) on January 23, 1995. Respondent accepted the delivery. Respondent sold these 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to a local produce house, which subsequently sold the tomatoes to another local produce house. The tomatoes were eventually sold to a company in Grand Rapids, Michigan. On January 28, 1995, five days after Petitioners had delivered the 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent, the tomatoes were inspected in Grand Rapids, Michigan. According to the inspection certificate, the inspection revealed: "Decay (3 to 28 percent)(mostly early, some advanced stages);" "Checksum;" and "Average approximately 85 percent light red to red." Petitioners have yet to be paid any of $1,214.40 Respondent owes them (under the terms of the First Agreement) for the 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes they delivered to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The Second Transaction (Petitioners' Invoice Number 5299) Under the terms of the second verbal agreement at issue in the instant case (Second Agreement), Respondent agreed to purchase from Petitioners, and Petitioners agreed to sell to Respondent (FOB), 132 boxes of ("no grade") cherry tomatoes for $12.65 a box. In accordance with the terms of the Second Agreement, Petitioners delivered 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent (at Petitioners' loading dock) on January 27, 1995. Respondent accepted the delivery. Respondent sold 84 of these 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes to a Florida produce house, which subsequently sold the tomatoes to a company in Houston, Texas. These 84 boxes of cherry tomatoes were inspected in Houston, Texas, on January 31, 1995, four days after Petitioners had delivered them to Respondent. The defects found during the inspection were noted on the inspection certificate. Petitioners have yet to be paid in full for the 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes they delivered to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the Second Agreement. Respondent tendered payment (in the form of a check) in the amount of $811.20, but Petitioners refused to accept such payment because it did not represent the full amount ($1,669.80) Respondent owed them (under the terms of the Second Agreement) for these cherry tomatoes. (Although they have not endorsed or cashed the check, Petitioners are still holding it in their possession.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent is indebted to Petitioners in the amount of $2,884.20, (2) directing Respondent to make payment to Petitioners in the amount of $2,884.20 within 15 days following the issuance of the order, (3) indicating that the $811.20 check that was previously tendered to Petitioners by Respondent (and is still in Petitioners' possession) will be considered partial payment of this $2,884.20 indebtedness, if Respondent advises Petitioners, in writing, that it desires the check to be used for such purpose and if it provides Petitioners written assurance that the check is still a valid negotiable instrument; and (4) announcing that if payment in full of this $2,884.20 indebtedness is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from the Farm Bureau, Respondent's surety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of February, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1996.
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether the Respondent Florida Lime Growers, Inc., is indebted to the Petitioner for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact On May 29, 1991, Petitioner entered into an agreement with Florida Lime Growers, Inc., for the handling of the sale of his fruit on consignment. The terms of that agreement included the following: Florida Lime Growers, Inc., agreed to grade Petitioner's fruit, pack that which met quality standards, and use its best efforts to sell the packed fruit for the benefit of Petitioner on a pooled basis at market price. No specified price was guaranteed by or agreed to be paid to Petitioner by Florida Lime Growers, Inc. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., was entitled to charge a fee for packing Petitioner's fruit and a commission on the sale of the fruit. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., agreed to pay to Petitioner that portion of the sale proceeds received attributable to Petitioner's share of the pool, less all expenses of sale. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., also agreed to pay Petitioner a portion of the anticipated return prior to actual receipt of payment by Florida Lime Growers, Inc., from the ultimate purchaser. At no time did Petitioner contract with Florida Lime Growers, Inc., for the outright purchase by it of all of Petitioner's mangos and avocados, regardless of quality. The terms of Petitioner's agreement with Florida Lime Growers, Inc., are substantially similar to the agreement he entered into with another packing house, Limeco, Inc., on May 28, 1991. When Petitioner or his employees delivered mangos or avocados to Florida Lime Growers, Inc., the load of fruit would be weighed and a receiving ticket would be given to the Petitioner or to his employee showing the date, type of produce, number of bin boxes brought, and the total weight expressed in pounds and bushels (55 pounds per bushel). Florida Lime Growers, Inc., would then take the fruit and grade it, that is, separate out the fruit of good enough quality to be packed and sold. Petitioner was offered the opportunity to pick up the culls (the fruit not good enough to be packed), so that he might attempt to sell them on his own, but he declined to do so as he felt it was too much of a bother to be worth the effort. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., would then sort Petitioner's fruit by size and pack it for sale. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., kept a record of the quantity of Matthews' fruit, by type and size, as well as the proportion of the pool of fruit available for sale which Petitioner's fruit represented. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., sold Petitioner's mangos and avocados at market price. Market prices fluctuate, which is why Florida Lime Growers, Inc., as well as Petitioner's other dealer, Limeco, did not guarantee a rate of return or agree to pay a specified price. Petitioner's rates of return per bushel for sales of his packed mangos and avocados by Florida Lime Growers, Inc., can be determined by dividing the net return by the total weight packed (in pounds) to get a per pound return, then multiplying the result by 55 to arrive at the per bushel return. Applying this formula to the information contained in the account sales reports contained in Respondent's Composite Exhibit 8, the rates of return to Petitioner were as follows: Type of Fruit To be Packed Receipt # Total Weight Packed Total Net Return Per Bushel Return Mango 610 8,280 2,584.58 17.05 Mango 617 4,600 1,435.88 17.05 Mango 623 8,987 3,303.23 20.35 Mango 630 3,102 1,073.95 19.25 Mango 635 2,629 935.79 19.80 Mango 641 3,597 1,311.14 19.80 Mango 651 3,680 1,201.16 15.40 Mango 654 6,083 1,138.35 10.45 Mango 676 1,540 340.14 12.10 Avocado 689 3,800 2,783.91 40.15 Mango 692 220 50.44 12.65 Avocado 696 925 692.56 41.25 Mango 727 15,455 1,666.98 6.05 Mango 740 13,728 2,002.61 8.25 Mango 747 10,021 1,399.91 7.70 Mango 753 7,953 1,159.16 8.25 Petitioner presented no evidence to show that the prices obtained for his fruit by Florida Lime Growers, Inc., were below the market. The only evidence of price other than Respondents' sales was the net return paid to Petitioner by Limeco for mangos delivered by him to that dealer on May 28 and 29, 1991, and after July 1, 1991. That evidence shows that there was a substantial decrease in sales price between May 28, 1991, and July 1, 1991. For instance, Exhibit 2 reflects a net return for mangos delivered at the end of May of $17.85 per bushel. Exhibit 5 reflects a net return for mangos delivered on July 3, 1991, of $9.78 per bushel, with $6.20 per bushel for "No. 2's." Exhibit 4 reflects a net return for mangos delivered between July 5 and July 11 of $6.08 per bushel, with $4.59 per bushel for "No. 2's." The last sale of mangos by Florida Lime Growers, Inc., which included those of the Petitioner, was to Amerifresh, a broker. Amerifresh selected and arranged for the trucking company to transport the shipment to Seattle, Washington. Upon arrival, the shipment of mangos was rejected as a "failed" shipment. The shipment was inspected by a U.S.D.A. inspector and a copy of the U.S.D.A. inspection certificate was obtained by Florida Lime Growers, Inc., maintained in its records, and offered to Petitioner. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., received payment for only the small portion of the shipment which was salvageable. The funds received representing that portion of the shipment comprised of Petitioner's mangos, less his proportionate share of the expenses of sale, were paid to Petitioner. Petitioner presented no evidence to show that Florida Lime Growers, Inc., received any money for his mangos and avocados that it did not pay to him, after deducting the costs of sale and the advances or prepayments made in accordance with their agreement. Petitioner was provided with an accounting with the final check issued for payment from each pool. With respect to the final payment on September 10, 1991, in the amount of $233.07, Matthews received an accounting, including a letter of explanation, and the opportunity to review the records of Florida Lime Growers, Inc. Petitioner spoke with both William Planes and Rachel Trant of Florida Lime Growers, Inc., at unspecified times, but he was not satisfied with the information that either of them provided. The computerized accounting system used by Florida Lime Growers, Inc., is also used by several other businesses in the produce industry. Florida Lime Growers, Inc., employees have offered to explain the printed reports to its customers and have done so on request. 2/ Although he had the opportunity to do, Petitioner never requested assistance or an explanation from the employee of Florida Lime Growers, Inc., who ran the computerized accounting system and who calculated the adjustments and final return to be made on the Amerifresh shipment. Petitioner made no attempt to communicate with anyone from Florida Lime Growers, Inc., after he received his final payment on September 10, 1991. July 1, 1991, was the last date on which Petitioner brought mangos to Florida Lime Growers, Inc., which were accepted by the latter. The last load of Petitioner's mangos brought to Florida Lime Growers, Inc., was refused due to the poor quality. Petitioner's first effort at filing a complaint was on November 18, 1991, when he filed a complaint against "Bill Planes d/b/a Florida Lime Growers, Inc." William "Bill" Planes is the president of, and is one of two directors of, Florida Lime Growers, Inc. Mr. Planes is the person with whom the Petitioner had most of his dealings involving Florida Lime Growers, Inc. Mr. Planes, in his individual capacity, was not a dealer pursuant to Chapter 604, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was notified by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services by letter dated January 7, 1992, that his complaint could not be processed until he amended it to name Florida Lime Growers, Inc., as the Respondent. The actual date Petitioner filed the amendment to his complaint is unclear from the documents, but it was not until some time after March 2, 1991, the date on which it was notarized. The first notice of Petitioner's complaint that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services sent to Respondent, Florida Lime Growers, Inc., was on March 11, 1992.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order in this case dismissing the Petitioner's complaint, as amended, and denying the relief requested by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of September 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September 1992.
The Issue Whether, under the provisions of sections 604.15 - 604.34, Florida Statutes, Lester Towell Distributors, Inc., is entitled to recover $2,098 for agricultural products ordered by and delivered to VBJ Packing, Inc
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. Lester Towell is a dealer in Florida-grown agricultural products. VBJ is a dealer in Florida-grown agricultural products. On May 22, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of extra-large green bell peppers. Lester Towell delivered 200 boxes of such peppers to VBJ on May 23, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 63 boxes of peppers from producer Ott Farms, Inc., in Estero, Florida, and 137 boxes from producer Thomas Produce, in Boca Raton, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for these producers; it purchased the products outright. On May 22, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of yellow corn. Lester Towell delivered 100 boxes of such corn to VBJ on May 24, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 100 boxes of corn from producer Wilkinson-Cooper, in Belle Glade, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for this producer; it purchased the products outright. On May 24, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of jalapeno peppers, white corn, and red radishes. Lester Towell delivered two boxes of jalapeno peppers, 26 boxes of white corn, and 20 boxes of red radishes to VBJ on May 25, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 2 boxes of jalapeno peppers from producer Ott Farms, Inc., in Estero, Florida, and 26 boxes of white corn and 20 boxes of red radishes from producer American Growers in Belle Glade, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for these producers; it purchased the products outright. Lester Towell filed its complaint with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("Department") pursuant to the provisions of section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes, because VBJ did not pay for the products identified above. There is, however, no evidence to establish that Lester Towell was a producer or the agent or representative of a producer with respect to the products for which it seeks payment. It is, therefore, not a "person" entitled to file a complaint with the Department against VBJ and its surety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing the complaint of Lester Towell Distributors, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 3nd day of July 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 3rd day of July 1996
The Issue This concerns the issue of whether wooden stakes utilized in the growing of tomatoes in the State of Florida are exempt from the Florida State sales tax under Florida Statute 212.08(5)(a). At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses James Felix Price and George Marlowe, Jr. The Respondent called no witnesses. The Petitioner offered and had admitted three exhibits and the Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence two exhibits. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are consistent with the findings herein they were adopted by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions in this Order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as being not supported by the evidence or unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Pitch Pine Lumber Company, sells tomato stakes to tomato growers in Florida. As a result of these sales, the Petitioner was assessed and ordered by the Department of Revenue to pay sales tax due on the sales of tomato stakes. It was stipulated by and between Petitioner and Respondent that the amount in controversy is $11,723.26 and that if the exemption under Florida Statute 212.08(5)(a) does not apply then the Petitioner shall owe that amount plus interest and penalties if applicable from October 3, 1980. Tomato stakes are used in almost every area of Florida today which produces tomatoes. Approximately two- thirds of the 44,000 acres used to grow tomatoes in Florida utilize tomato stakes. The only area which does not utilize these stakes is the Dade County area and this is due to the coral rock soil conditions. The stakes which are used are wooden stakes. These stakes are driven into the ground and used to hold the tomato plants upright or vertical. This prevents the fruit of the tomato plants from resting directly on the soil. Tomato stakes and cotton cloth are both natural plant materials and contain cellulose. One of the benefits of using tomato stakes is that by holding the plant upright, the plant will form a natural canopy which then shades the fruit and prevents sun scalding and sunburning of the fruit. This shade is provided by the leaf canopy of the plant and the stakes themselves provide no shade. Another benefit of utilizing tomato stakes is increased insect control and decreased fruit loss. This is the result of the fruit of the plant being held up off the ground by the plant which is being held upright by the tomato stakes. Tomato stakes were used for this purpose in Florida as early as 1947 and 1948. By 1960, tomato stakes were being used extensively in Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue enter a final order requiring the Petitioner to pay $11,723.26, plus interest and penalties, if applicable from October 3, 1980. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 23rd day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Roderick K. Shaw, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2111 Tampa, Florida 33601 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LLO4 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Levy, Esquire General Counsel Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy Miller Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is indebted to the Petitioner for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner, Oglesby Nursery, Inc., is a commercial nursery providing a variety of landscape agricultural products. The principal office for Petitioner is located at 3714 SW 52nd Avenues Hollywood, Florida. Respondent, Garden of Eden Landscape and Nursery, Inc., is an agricultural dealer with its office located at 3317 So. Dixie Highway, Delray Beach, Florida. Respondent, Garden of Eden, is subject to the licensing requirements of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. As such, Garden of Eden is obligated to obtain and to post a surety bond to ensure that payment is made to producers for agricultural products purchased by the dealer. To meet this requirement, Garden of Eden delivered a certificate of deposit from Sun Bank of Palm Beach County to the Department. On or about August 22, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $7673.40 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of nine may pan coconuts and thirty green malayans trees. All of the trees were accepted and no issue was made as to their condition. On or about September 2, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $1190.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of seven coconut malayans dwarf trees. All of the trees were accepted and no issue was made as to their condition. The total amount of the agricultural products purchased by Garden of Eden from Petitioner was $8863.40. The total amount Garden of Eden paid on this account was $5000.00. The balance of indebtedness owed by Garden of Eden t o Petitioner for the purchases listed above is $3863.40. Petitioner claims it is due an additional sum of $247.77 representing interest on the unpaid account since the assessment of interest to an unpaid balance is standard practice in the industry and since Respondent took delivery of additional products knowing interest on past due accounts to be Petitioner's policy. No written agreement of acknowledgment executed by Garden of Eden was presented with regard to the interest claim.
The Issue The issue is whether Boyer Produce, Inc. and its surety, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, owe petitioner $1,751.80 as alleged in the complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In July 1993, petitioner, Patricia Thomas, was given authority by her brother to sell all remaining watermelons on his farm located in Citra, Florida. This amounted to approximately one truckload. She eventually sold them to respondent, Boyer Produce, Inc., a dealer (broker) in agricultural products located in Williston, Florida. Its owner and president is Kennedy Boyer (Boyer), who represented his firm in this proceeding. As an agricultural dealer, respondent is required to obtain a license from and post a surety bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). In this case, the bond has been posted by respondent, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, and is in the amount of $75,000.00. Although the parties had never had business dealings before this transaction, through a mutual acquaintance, Randy Rowe, respondent learned that petitioner was interested in selling her watermelons. After Boyer visited the field and examined three watermelons which he described as "good," Boyer offered to purchase a truckload for 4 per pound if all melons were of the same quality. Thomas declined and counteroffered with a price of 5 per pound. The parties then agreed to split the difference and arrived at a sales price of 4 per pound. During the negotiations, Rowe acted as an intermediary between the parties and observed the formation of the contract as well as the loading of the goods onto the truck. Although the matter is in dispute, it is found that both parties agreed that Thomas would be paid 4 per pound for "good" watermelons delivered. This meant that petitioner would not be paid unless and until the watermelons were delivered to their final destination in "good" condition. In the trade, being in "good condition" meant that the watermelons would meet U. S. Grade No. 1 standards. Respondent also agreed to provide a truck and driver at petitioner's field and to transport the produce to Brooklyn, New York, the final destination. At the same time, petitioner was given the responsibility of loading the watermelons on the truck. To assist petitioner in meeting her up- front labor costs, respondent advanced $500.00 as partial payment for the shipment. Winston Smith was hired by respondent to transport the melons to New York. He arrived at petitioner's field on Saturday, July 16, 1993, and remained there while approximately 46,000 pounds of melons were loaded on an open top flat bed trailer. One of the loaders said the melons were "packed real tight," and four bales of straw were used in packing. According to Rowe, who observed the loading, the watermelons packed that day were in "good" condition, and any nonconforming watermelons were "kicked" off the truck. Also, by way of admission, the driver, as agent for Boyer, acknowledged to Rowe that the melons loaded were in "good" condition. Late that afternoon, a thunderstorm came through the area and, due to lightening, no further loading could be performed. Since around 46,000 pounds had already been loaded, petitioner desired for the truck to be sent on its way north. Smith, however, told petitioner he wanted 50,000 pounds in order to make his trip to New York worthwhile and he would not go with anything less. Acceding to his wishes, petitioner agreed to meet Smith the next morning and load an additional two hundred watermelons, or 4,000 pounds, on the truck. Smith then drove the loaded truck to a nearby motel where he spent the night. That evening it rained, and this resulted in the uncovered watermelons and straw getting wet. The next morning, Smith telephoned petitioner and advised her to meet him at 9:00 a. m. at a local Starvin' Marvin store, which had a weight scale that could certify the weight of the shipment. Petitioner carried two hundred watermelons to the store at 9:00 a. m., but Smith did not arrive. Around noon, she received a call from Smith advising that his truck was broken down at the motel and would not start. The watermelons were then taken to the motel and loaded onto the trailer. In all, 50,040 pounds were loaded. Smith's truck would still not start after the watermelons were loaded, and Smith refused to spend any money out of his own pocket to repair the truck. Not wanting to delay the shipment any longer, petitioner gave Smith $35.00 to have someone assist him in starting the vehicle. In order for the repairs to be made, the loaded trailer had to be jacked up and the truck unhooked from and later rehooked to the trailer. This was accomplished only with great difficulty, and Smith was forced to "jostle" the trailer with the power unit for some two hours altogether. According to Rowe, he warned Smith that such jostling could bruise the melons and "mess them up." Smith was also cautioned early on that he should make the necessary repairs as soon as possible so that the load of watermelons would not continue to sit uncovered in the sun. The truck eventually departed around 9:00 p. m., Sunday evening after the uncovered trailer had sat in the sun all day. The shipment was delivered to Brooklyn on the following Tuesday afternoon or evening, and it was inspected by a government inspector on Wednesday morning. According to the inspection report, which has been received in evidence, the load was split evenly between crimson and jubilee melons, and 23 percent and 21 percent, respectively, of the two types of melons failed to meet grade. No greater than a 12 percent "margin" is allowed on government inspections. Almost all of the defects cited in the report were attributable to the melons being "over-ripe." The buyer in New York rejected the entire shipment as not meeting standards. Respondent then sold the shipment for only $1350.00 resulting in a loss of $350.00 on the transaction. In addition, respondent says the driver (Smith) accepted $1200.00 instead of the $2,000.00 he would have normally charged to transport a load to New York. When petitioner asked for her money a few weeks later, respondent declined, saying the goods had not met specification when delivered to their destination, and if she had any remedy at all, it was against Smith, the driver. If petitioner had been paid 4 per pound for the entire shipment, she would have been entitled to an additional $1,751.80, or a total of $2,251.80. Petitioner contends that the melons failed to meet grade because of the negligence of the driver. More specifically, she says the loaded melons sat in the sun for almost two days, including all day Sunday after being soaked from the Saturday evening rain. If wet melons are exposed to the hot sun for any length of time, they run the risk of "wet burning," which causes decay. But even if this occurred, only 1 percent of the shipment was found to have "decay" by the government inspector. Petitioner also says that by being jostled for two hours on Sunday, the melons were bruised. Again, however, the melons were rejected primarily because they were over-ripe, not bruised. Therefore, and consistent with the findings in the inspection report, it is found that the jostling and wet burning did not have a material impact on the quality of the melons. Respondent contended the melons were close to being fully ripened when they were picked and loaded. In this regard, Charles Strange, Sr. agreed that if the melons sat in the field for another four or five days, they would have started "going bad." By this, it may be reasonably inferred that, unless the melons were loaded and delivered in a timely manner, they would have become over-ripe and would not meet grade within a matter of days. Therefore, a timely delivery of the melons was extremely important, and to the extent respondent's agent, Smith, experienced at least a twenty-four hour delay in delivering the melons through no fault of petitioner, this contributed in part to their failure to meet grade. Petitioner is accordingly entitled to some additional compensation, a fair allocation of which is one-half of the value of the shipment, or $1125.90, less the $500.00 already paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services requiring respondent to pay petitioner $625.90 within thirty days from date of the agency's final order. In the event such payment is not timely made, the surety should be liable for such payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard A. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company Post Office Box 1985 Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1985 Patricia Thomas Post Office Box 522 Archer, Florida 32618 Kennedy Boyer 15A South West 2nd Avenue Williston, Florida 32696
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondents are indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $4,273.15 for agriculture products, plus a $50.00 filing fee, totaling $4,323.15; and whether Respondents are indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $551.00 for agriculture products, plus a $50.00 filing fee, totaling $601.00.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Myrick Produce was a producer of agriculture products. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Royal Palm Produce was a dealer in agriculture products. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Royal Palm Produce purchased agriculture products from Myrick Produce. Edward L. Myrick testified on behalf of Myrick Produce. He is the sole owner of Myrick Produce. No one testified on behalf of Royal Palm Produce. Case No. 09-4306 Myrick Produce had an invoice and a corresponding signed bill of lading for each order of Florida produce that was sold to Royal Palm Produce by Myrick Produce. Each invoice provides, among other things, payment terms of 21 days. The bill of lading for each order indicates, among other things, that the produce was received in good condition and that the quantity was verified. Invoice No. 124814 dated January 15, 2009, reflects, among other things, 60 cartons of choice eggplant at a cost of $381.00. Choice eggplant was at a cost of $6.35 per carton. Invoice No. 124994 dated January 21, 2009, reflects, among other things, 60 cartons of choice eggplant at a cost of $381.00. Invoice No. 125139 dated January 27, 2009, reflects, among other things, 27 cartons of choice eggplant at a cost of $171.45. Invoice No. 125263 dated January 30, 2009, reflects, among other things, 60 cartons of choice eggplant at a cost of $381.00. Invoice No. 125383 dated February 3, 2009, reflects, among other things, 60 cartons of choice eggplant at a cost of $501.00. Choice eggplant increased from $6.35 per carton to $8.35 per carton. Invoice No. 125618 dated February 10, 2009, reflects, among other things, 60 cartons of choice eggplant at a cost of $501.00. Invoice No. 126132 reflects, among other things, 60 cartons of choice eggplant at a cost of $441.00. Choice eggplant decreased from $8.35 per carton to $7.35 per carton. As to the date of the Invoice No. 126132, the invoice only reflects the month of February; however, the corresponding Bill of Lading reflects the same invoice number, the same agriculture produce, and the date of February 19, 2009. Consequently, an inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that the date of the invoice is February 19, 2009. Invoice No. 126570 dated March 3, without a year, reflects, among other things, two cartons of long hot pepper at a cost of $48.70. Long hot pepper was $24.35 per carton. As to the date of Invoice No. 126570, the corresponding Bill of Lading reflects the same invoice number, the same agriculture produce, and a date of March 3, 2009. Consequently, an inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that the date of the invoice is March 3, 2009. Invoice No. 128289 reflects, among other things, 60 cartons of choice eggplant at a cost of $501.00. Choice eggplant increased from $7.35 per carton to $8.35 per carton. The corresponding Bill of Lading reflects a signature as the “Shipper,” instead of the “Carrier”; whereas, the prior bill of lading reflects a signature as the “Shipper.” Furthermore, the answer by Royal Palm Produce indicates that the claim by Myrick Produce is admitted and valid. Consequently, an inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that the signature as the “Shipper” was a mistake and that the signature is the “Carrier.” Invoice No. 128378 reflects, among other things, 50 cartons of large cucumber at a cost of $267.50; 50 cartons of select cucumber at a cost of $317.50; and 60 cartons of choice eggplant at a cost of $381.00. Large cucumber was at a cost of $5.35 per carton. Select cucumber was at a cost of $6.35 per carton. Choice eggplant decreased from $7.35 per carton to $6.35 per carton. Myrick Produce’s total claimed indebtedness for agriculture produce is $4,273.15. Royal Palm Produce admits that Myrick Produce’s claim is valid.1 However, Royal Palm Produce asserts that it has partially satisfied and is making payments toward the indebtedness.2 No evidence was presented to support this assertion. Royal Palm Produce has not satisfied any amount of the debt owed. Further, Royal Palm Produce is not making any payments on the debt owed. Royal Palm Produce is indebted to Myrick Produce in the total amount of $4,273.15. Additionally, Myrick Produce is claiming $50.00 for filing the Amended Claim with the Department. No appearance was made by the casualty company, Capitol Insurance Companies. Case No. 09-4606 Myrick Produce is not pursuing any claim against Royal Palm Produce in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order in Case No. 09-4306 finding that Sun-Rich America, Inc., d/b/a Royal Palm Produce is indebted to Edward L. Myrick, d/b/a Edward L. Myrick Produce in the amount of $4,273.15 and ordering the payment of same, plus a filing fee of $50.00 for filing the Amended Claim; and in Case No. 09-4606 dismissing the Amended Claim. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 16th day of November, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent owes Petitioner $14,080 on account for vegetables sold and delivered at the request of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, M.O. "Buster" Williams, is an agent for the producers of agricultural products, carrots, red radishes and white corn. Respondent, Dougal M. Buie, III, d/b/a Blue Star Citrus and Vegetables, is a dealer of such products in the normal course of its business activity. Respondent is licensed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and is bonded by First Union National Bank of Florida. Petitioner sold Respondent carrots, red radishes and white corn by the truck load between the period May 19, 1993 and June 14, 1993, and was given a Bill of Lading therefor. Respondent was sent an Invoice for each shipment and payment was due in full following receipt of the Invoice. As of the date of the formal hearing, each invoice for shipments made between May 19 and June 14, 1993 remains due and owing and unpaid. The total amount of indebtedness owed by Respondent, Buie, to Petitioner is $14,080.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring Respondent to pay to the Petitioner the sum of $14,080.00 DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Robert F. Vason, Jr., Esquire Potter, Vason and Clements 308 East Fifth Avenue Mount Dora, Florida 32757 M.O. Buster Williams 1412 Raintree Lane Mount Dora, Florida 32757 Lewis Stone, Esquire P. O. Box 2048 Eustis, Florida 32727-2048 First Union National Bank of Florida 21 North Grove Street Eustis, Florida 32726
