Findings Of Fact On March 21, 1995, Respondent's truck driver was referred by another nursery to Petitioner. Pursuant to instructions from Kevin Laux, coowner of Respondent, the driver was looking to purchase Washingtonian palms for resale. The driver went to Petitioner's nursery, found Washingtonian palms, and telephoned Mr. Laux. Mr. Laux and Wilfred Perez, vice president of Petitioner, spoke on the telephone about the plants. In the conversation, Mr. Perez represented that the Washingtonian plants were two and one-half to three feet tall, but the plants delivered were half that height. Mr. Perez also described other plants that Mr. Laux ordered. These were calypso oleanders, three types of ixora, and 15 paurotis palm. Mr. Perez described the calypso oleanders as somewhat taller than those delivered, but, more importantly, the plants were infested with yellow aphids and required insecticide treatment by Mr. Laux. The ixora were somewhat smaller than described. Also, the paurotis palms were infested with scale and mealy bugs and required more extensive insecticide treatment than did the oleanders. Mr. Perez presented the driver with an invoice for $1550, which was the price upon which Mr. Perez and Mr. Laux agreed for the plants. The invoice stated: "All merchandise should be checked before accepting. We terminate our liability upon acceptance of merchandise." The driver gave Mr. Perez a check for $1550. When Mr. Laux inspected the shipment early the next morning, he called Mr. Perez and complained. After inspecting other plants at the nursery, Mr. Perez called Mr. Laux the same day and they agreed on an adjustment of $187.50. In the meantime, Mr. Laux had stopped payment on the check, and three attempts by Mr. Perez to cash the check were fruitless. Mr. Perez believed that the $1550 check should be paid before he issued a credit. Mr. Laux wanted a check for the credit from Mr. Perez before sending another check. There were a number of obvious solutions available, such as the issuance of a draft by Mr. Laux for the reduced amount due, payable upon receipt by the bank of the check for $1550. Instead, the parties did nothing to try to work out a means by which to credit Mr. Laux for the amount agreed except to resort to administrative litigation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order determining that Respondent owes Petitioner the sum of $1362.50. ENTERED on July 7, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 7, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Wilfred Perez Vice President Tropical Resort Marketing, Inc. 20701 Williams Drive North Ft. Myers, FL 33917 Kevin Laux Citrus and Palm Gardens 12426 US Highway 441 Belleview, FL 34420
The Issue Whether the respondent is indebted to the complainant for the sale of Florida-grown agricultural products, and, if so, the amount of the indebtedness.
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: Mr. Rose has a grove of lychee trees on his property; each year he harvests the lychee nuts for sale, but the sale of agricultural products is not his sole source of income. In mid-June, 1996, Mr. Rose heard that the Growers Association was offering $3.50 per pound for lychees, the highest price of which he was aware. Mr. Rose took his fruit to the Growers Association on June 18, 1996. Mr. Rose had not done business with the Growers Association previously but had sold his fruit to another company. Mr. Rose received a grower's receipt showing that, on June 18, 1996, he had brought in 298 pounds of fruit, that 14 pounds were culls, and that the Growers Association had packed 27.9 ten- pound boxes of fruit. The Growers Association packed only marketable fruit. Ninety-nine percent of the tropical fruit grown in Florida is handled in pools.1 According to industry practice, the "handler" does not purchase the fruit outright but is responsible for packing, storing, selling, and shipping the fruit and for accounting for and remitting the proceeds of sale, minus expenses, to the members of the pool on a pro rata basis. The pools are composed of all growers whose fruit is packed during a designated period of time. Prices initially quoted to growers participating in a pooling arrangement are not guaranteed because the actual sales price may vary, depending on market conditions. It was the practice of the Growers Association to handle lychees under a pooling arrangement, and the receipt Mr. Rose received from the Growers Association contained the notation "P- 407LY," which designated the pool to which Mr. Rose's fruit was assigned. The Lychee P-407LY pool to which Mr. Rose's fruit was assigned consisted of fruit packed by the Growers Association between June 15 and 21, 1996. Mr. Rose was told on several occasions by employees of the Growers Association that he would receive $920.70 after expenses for the sale of his lychees. This amount was reflected in a Pool Price Report generated by the Growers Association on July 10, 1997, which also showed that a total of 107.6 pounds of fruit was included in the pool and that the Growers Association anticipated receiving a total of $4,088.65 for the sale of the fruit in the pool. The Growers Association maintained in its files a work order showing that 83 ten-pound boxes of lychees were sold to Produce Services of America, Inc., at a price of $38.00 per box and that the fruit was shipped on June 21, 1996. According to the July 10 report, the Growers Association had received payment of $932.90 for 24.55 ten-pound boxes of lychees sold to "L & V" on June 21, 1996, at $38.00 per box, but there is no indication in the report that the anticipated payment of $3,154.00 had been received from Produce Services of America. Mr. Rose repeatedly called the Growers Association during July and August to inquire about when he would receive payment for his fruit. In accordance with the information he had consistently been given by employees of the Growers Association, he expected to receive $920.70. When he received a check from the Growers Association dated August 29, 1996, in the amount of $367.48, he called the Growers Association for an explanation of why he had received that amount rather than the $920.70 he was expecting. Ultimately, he spoke with Mr. Kendall in early September, who told him that the $367.48 was all he was going to receive as his pro rata share of the pool because Produce Services of American had not paid in full for the 83 boxes of fruit it purchased. As reflected in the Pool Price Report dated September 19, 1996, the Growers Association received a total payment of only $1,847.42 for the fruit in the pool, rather than the $4,088.65 shown in the July 10, 1996, report. After the Growers Association's expenses were deducted, a total of $1,417.25 was distributed to the five growers in the pool. Although a copy of this final price report for the P-407LY pool should have accompanied Mr. Rose’s check, it did not. According to the information contained in the September 19 Pool Price Report, the shortfall in the amount received for the sale of the fruit in the pool is attributable to the Growers Association's receiving only $913.00, or $11.00 per box, for the sale of the 83 boxes of lychees to Produce Services of America, instead of the anticipated $3,154.00. The $913.00 was paid to the Growers Association by check dated August 19, 1996. Mr. Rose did not present sufficient evidence to establish that he had a contract for the outright sale of 27.9 ten-pound boxes of lychees to the Growers Association. Rather, the evidence establishes that Mr. Rose's fruit was handled by the Growers Association under a pooling arrangement and that, consistent with the practice in the tropical fruit industry, the Growers Association assumed responsibility for packing, storing, selling, and shipping the fruit. The Growers Association failed to offer any credible evidence to explain why Produce Services of America paid only $11.00 per box for the 83 boxes of fruit shipped from the pool, notwithstanding that the agreed sales price was $38.00 per box.2 Even if the fruit was damaged or in poor condition when it was delivered to Produce Services of America, the Growers Association packed 27.9 ten-pound boxes of marketable fruit on Mr. Rose’s account, and, once packed, it had complete control of the fruit in the pool. The Growers Association failed to offer any evidence to establish that it acted with reasonable care in fulfilling its responsibilities under the pool arrangement. Consequently, it bears the risk of loss rather than Mr. Rose and is indebted to him for $553.22, which is the difference between the $920.70 Mr. Rose would have received as his pro rata share of the pool had Produce Services of America paid the agreed-upon sales price of $38.00 per box and the $367.48 which the Growers Association paid to Mr. Rose by check dated August 29, 1996.
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 the South Florida Growers Association, Inc., is indebted to Mike Rose for the sale of agricultural products and ordering the South Florida Growers Association, Inc., to pay Mike Rose $553.22 within fifteen (15) days of the date its order becomes final. The Final Order should also provide that, in the event that the South Florida Growers Association, Inc., fails to pay Mike Rose $533.22 within the time specified, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, as surety for the South Florida Growers Association, Inc., must provide payment under the conditions and provisions of its bond. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Land and Waiter Adjudicatory Commission should grant or deny the petition filed under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, for the establishment of the Tampa Palms Open Space and Transportation Community Development District.
Findings Of Fact The following findings constitute a summary of the evidence, and are based upon the presentation and testimony presented at the public hearing, as well as Exhibits A through L of the petition and Exhibits 1 through 3 presented at the public hearing: On June 23, 1989, a petition for creation of the Tampa Palms Open Space and Transportation Community Development District was filed with the Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. After staff review of the petition, the Secretary determined that it satisfied all requirements of Section 190.005(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, and forwarded the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a local public hearing, pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The Secretary's letter of transmittal to the Division of Adminstrative Hearings constitutes certification that the petition addresses all those elements required by Section 190.005(1)(a), including a metes and bounds description of the district, written consent to the establishment of the district by owners of the property to be included in the district, a designation of five persons to be initial members of the board of supervisors, the proposed name of the district, a map showing major trunk water mains and sewer interceptor and out falls currently in existence on the property, proposed time tables for construction and related estimates of costs, a proposed master plan for the district and abutting property, and an economic impact statement. There was no dispute at the public hearing concerning the sufficiency of the petition, or the payment of all required fees. The date of September 15, 1989, was established for the local public hearing by Notice of Hearing issued on July 25, 1989. Notice of the local public hearing was published in The Tampa Tribune on August 17, 24, 31 and September 7, 1989, and was also published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on August 18, 1989. No persons filed written statements in support of, or in opposition to, the petition as authorized by Rule 42-1.012(3), Florida Administrative Code. Neither the City of Tampa nor Hillsborough County conducted a public hearing under Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Therefore, this recommendation and report is based solely on the testimony, presentation, and exhibits received at the local public hearings including the petition. The Petitioner has proposed the creation of the Tampa Palms Open Space and Transportation Community Development District to provide the major transportation network and open space improvements to certain designated properties, composed of approximately 5,200 acres located in the City of Tampa's northeast annexation area, and bounded on the east by County Road 581 and Interstate 75, and on the west by Interstate 275. A community development district is a local unit of special purpose government. Over a fifteen year period, this district is proposed to develop into a community with approximately 8,700 dwelling units, and approximately 22 million square feet of office and commercial development. The proposed development constitutes a planned mixed use development of regional impact. This newly proposed district will lie adjacent to, and overlap a portion of, an existing district known as the Tampa Palms community Development District which was created in 1982. The overlapping areas were referred to as Tracts 3 and 4, and constitute approximately 2,000 acres of the new district's total acreage. To the southwest of these overlapping tracts, are Tracts 1 and 2 of the existing district, and to the northeast of these overlapping tracts is an area to be included in the new district comprised of about 3,200 acres which has been acquired subsequent to the creation of the existing district, and therefore, is not included within the current district boundaries. Since its creation in 1982, the Tampa Palms community Development District has issued bonds, to be repaid through special assessments, for the immediate installation of. infrastructure and landscaping that otherwise would likely have taken the developer longer to complete on a less financially advantageous basis. In Tracts 1 and 2, infrastructure is being completed in advance of home building. The existing district has also undertaken maintenance functions for its open spaces. Special assessments made in Tracts 1 and 2 will not be made by the existing district in Tracts 3 and 4, the overlapping tracts, if this new district is created. Instead, special assessments in Tracts 3 ands 4, as well as the remaining areas of the new district, will be made through this new Proposed district. Thus, the existing Tampa Palms Community Development District will not levy special assessments in the overlapping area if the Tampa Palms Open Space and Transportation Community Development District is approved. This will be done in the overlapping area through the new district so that those residents and property owners in this overlapping area will not be subject to special assessments by two different districts. However, residents in the overlapping area will be subject to ad valorem taxes by both districts, although the ad valorem assessments by the new district would only be for district administration and not for maintenance. Thus, the ad valorem assessments of the new district in the overlapping area are expected to be nominal, and the representatives of property owners present at the public hearing expressed no objection to this. The Petitioner intends to apply to extend the boundaries of the existing district in the future to include the entirety of the new district, if created. When this occurs, the Tampa Palms Community Development District will have all operation and maintenance functions, and all special assessments will be made through the Tampa Palms Transportation and Open Space Community Development District. The district which is here at issue will then be phased out over a twenty year period, and only the Tampa Palms Community Development District will remain to operate the total acreage. The existing district is better suited to have on-going maintenance functions because it already has a maintenance facility, vehicles and equipment, and a staff of maintenance workers, and thus, the costs associated with establishing a second maintenance unit can be avoided. The initial board of supervisors for this proposed district are shown as Exhibit D to the petition, to include: William I. Livingston, Chairman Tampa Palms Development Corporation 5209 Tampa Palms Boulevard Tampa, FL 33647 James W. Apthorp, Vice Chairman Gulfstream Development Corporation 5209 Tampa Palms Boulevard Tampa, FL 33647 Charles Davis, Sr. Davis Brothers Insurance Agency, Inc. 4401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, FL 33602 Steven J. Kuzma Ernst & Whinney 1 Tampa City Center, Suite 2000 Tampa, FL 33602 Joseph House United Services Automobile Association Southeast Regional Home Office 5505 West Cypress Street Tampa, FL 33607 Based upon the representation of counsel for the Petitioner who prepared the petition, the absence of any dispute among those persons in attendance at the local public hearing, and upon review and consideration of said petition and evidence presented at the public hearing, it is found that statements contained therein are true and correct, as required by Section 190.005(1)(e)1, Florida Statutes. The creation of the district is found to be consistent with the State and City of Tampa Comprehensive Plans, as required by Section 190.005(1)(e)2. A specific analysis is as follows: State Comprehensive Plan Natural Systems and Recreational Lands (Section 187.201(10)(a),(b)10-13, Florida Statutes) -- The proposed district will provide residents of the Tampa Palms community with recreational opportunities which would not otherwise be available. Residents of the existing Tampa Palms Community Development District have three parks, jogging and bike paths, as well as sidewalks throughout the community. These parks also provide a means of preserving environmentally sensitive lands and protected species habitat. Similar natural systems and recreational lands will be provided in the proposed district. Land Use (Section 187.201(16)(a),(b)1, Florida Statutes) -- The location of this proposed district has been designated as a regional activity center in the City of Tampa and Regional Comprehensive Plans. Thus, this is an area which has been recognized as appropriate for growth. The lands within the proposed district are subject to an existing development order that was approved prior to the City's adoption of its North Tampa Transportation Network, and which is currently under review in order to approve a change in alignment of the transportation network to match the network within the community with the City's proposed network. The City has constructed a major sewer force main along County Road 581 through the proposed boundaries of the district, and therefore, approval of this district will maximize the City's investment by encouraging planned growth in an area in which the City has a considerable investment. Public Facilities (Section 187.201(18)(a), (b)3, 4,6,7,9, Florida Statutes) -- The planning and financing mechanisms available to the district for providing public facilities are consistent with this goal and policies. Bonding capabilities provide an innovative but stable source of revenue, and the benefit-allocation analysis which will be performed as part of the bond validation process will ensure that costs incurred will be allocated to those who will benefit from available facilities. Since private investment will be required to finance part of the improvements, a partnership between the private and public sectors will be formed, with costs allocated to those who benefit from the resulting improvements. Transportation (Section 187.201(20)(a), (b)13,14, Florida Statutes) -- The transportation network within the proposed district will be aligned with the North Tampa Transportation Network, and thereby provide a coordinated approach to transportation improvements. Financing mechanisms and private-public sector financing partnerships will provide the means by which the district will be able to acquire dedicated rights-of-way prior to commencement of development, and this will result in lower costs for the district. Government Efficiency (Section 187.201(21)(a), (b)1, 2,5,13 Florida Statutes) -- This proposal would create an independent special taxing district, and will promote cooperation in governmental activities between the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County and the Petitioner. Neither the City nor County expressed any opposition to this petition at the public hearing. It is reported that residents within the existing Tampa Palms Community Development District have stated at public hearings held for two bond issues, that they support the added costs for services which the existing district provides. The Petitioner intends to negotiate the terms of an agreement with local government which will set forth the plan for development of the district's proposed transportation network in order to ensure that the district constructs those facilities which the City believes will be compatible with its long-term plans. City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan Recreation and Open Space Element -- The City of Tampa northeast annexation area, which is the area in which the proposed district is located, has been designated as an area which will have a major impact upon future recreational needs, requiring at least 48 acres of neighborhood park space to be established through a cooperative use agreement with the property owners within the annexation area. One of the purposes informing this district is to provide residents of Tampa Palms with recreational opportunities which would not otherwise be available. The existing Tampa Palms Community Development District provides residents with three parks, including playground, picnic, volleyball, tennis and restroom facilities, as well as jogging and bike paths, and sidewalks. While these existing recreational facilities were established jointly by the developer and the existing district, the district has ongoing maintenance responsibilities which will continue even after development activities have ceased. Similar open space and recreational uses are proposed for this new district. Land Use Element -- The establishment of this district will provide a means of financing the construction of the transportation network set forth in the Transportation and Capital Improvement Elements of the City's Plan. Additional financing sources are needed to fund the network for already approved development, and the district will be able to issue bonds, which special assessments will be pledged to repay. Since the Tampa Palms area has been designated as a regional activity center in the City and Regional Comprehensive Plans, this area is recognized as appropriate for growth. Approval of this district is consistent with this designation, and will encourage growth in an area in which the City has a substantial capital investment, having constructed a major sewer force main along County Road 581 through the district's boundaries. Capital Improvement Element -- With additional planning and financing mechanisms available to the District, such as the issuance of bonds, a stable source of revenues and financing will be provided which will allow those who benefit from the facilities which will become available to pay their share of the costs of improvements. The district proposes to provide, and finance, needed transportation and open space facilities in an area designated for growth within the City. Thus, approval of the district is consistent with the City's stated capital improvement goal. The land within the proposed district encompasses approximately 5,200 acres, is contiguous and compact, and includes an area which has undergone review as a development of regional impact under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. When fully developed, it is proposed that the district will contain 8,700 dwelling units and over 20 million square feet of office and retail uses in a type of urban village. According to Toxey A. Hall, P.E., of the civil engineering firm of Heidt and Associates, Inc., the area of the land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, compactness and contiguity to be developed as one functional interrelated community, as required by Section 190.005(1)(e)3. The creation of this district will allow the transportation and open space requirements of this community to be addressed without having to wait for local governments to finance infrastructure, and would avoid the usual situation where growth occurs before services are available resulting in significant traffic congestion, and the lack of other basic services for residents. The lands in this district are primarily under one ownership and one master plan. The Petitioner has prior experience with the Tampa Palms Community Development District. Therefore, the Petitioner has the knowledge and ability to carry out organized, efficient and planned growth and development which will match the size and cost of facilities needed to actual development in the district. The creation of this district will result in the availability of lower financing costs than would otherwise be available to a private developer. The presently forecasted interest rate which would be available to the district is nine and one-half per cent, whereas for private developers the forecasted rate is one and a half to two per cent over the prime rate of ten and one-half to eleven per cent. Additionally, the rate available to the district is fixed, while for private developer's it is an adjustable rate. The formation of this district presents a way by which capital infrastructure can be delivered in an area appropriate for growth without overburdening local government and taxpayers. Thus, the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area to be serviced by the district, as required by Section 190.005(1)(e)4. The development within the proposed district is governed by Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Previously, development orders were issued for Tampa Palms and a portion of the proposed new district known as Tampa Tech. These two development orders are now being combined into one development order, and it is represented that local, regional and state governmental agencies regulating developments of regional impact have reviewed and approved the level of development planned, including the plans for infrastructure. The City of Tampa's comprehensive plan has been approved by the Department of Community Affairs, and, as found above, the creation of this new district will be consistent with major elements of the City's Plan. Thus, the proposed services and facilities of this district will be compatible with the services and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities, as required by Section 190.005(1)(e)5. The residents within the existing Tampa Palms Community Development District have attended numerous meetings and public hearings of the district at which they have confirmed their willingness to pay additional taxes to receive an increase in public services. They have experienced the quality of open space maintenance and the effectiveness of the transportation network in the existing district, and it is represented that the residents support the increased costs associated with the district as long as infrastructure is provided in advance of development. The Petitioner has established that this is an area which is amenable to separate special-district government, as required by Section 190.005(1)(e)6, and in fact, the City of Tampa has designated this specific area as one for which a community development district would be a viable alternative.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant this Petition and establish the Tampa Palms Open Space and Transportation Community Development District in accordance with Section 190.005(1)(f), Florida Statutes, with those boundaries set forth in the legal description contained at Exhibit B of the Petition, and with those initial members of the board of supervisors shown at Exhibit D of the Petition. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 18th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia Henderson, Esquire 5209 Tampa Palms Boulevard Tampa, FL 33647 John Dixon Wall, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 725 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, FL 33602 Jeffrey T. Shear, Esquire Assistant City Attorney Fifth Floor, City Hall 315 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, FL 33602 Patty Woodworth, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Information Copies to Persons In Attendance: Gordon J. Schiff, Esquire P.O. Box 1531 Tampa, FL 33601 Keith W. Bricklemyer, Esquire 777 South Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 350 Tampa, FL 33602 Richard D. Eckhard, Esquire P.O. Box 1288 Tampa, FL 33601
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 Respondents (“Dobson’s” and “Western Surety”) should be required to pay an outstanding amount owed to Petitioner, Doug Lancaster Farms, Inc. (“Lancaster Farms”).
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the record as a whole, and matters subject to official recognition, the following Findings of Fact are made: Oden Hardy was the general contractor for a project in Apopka, Florida, known as the Space Box project. Dobson’s, a subcontractor on the Space Box project, contracted to purchase 269 trees (including Live Oaks, Crape Myrtles, Elms, and Magnolias) for $53,245.00 from Lancaster Farms. Dobson’s supplied Lancaster Farms with all the information needed to file a “notice to owner” as authorized by section 713.06, Florida Statutes. A truck from Dobson’s picked up the trees and transported them to the site of the Space Box project. Upon arriving with the trees, Dobson’s discovered that there was no means by which the trees could be watered at the site. Rather than attempting to jury rig some manner of watering system as requested by Oden Hardy, Dobson’s transported the trees to its place of business, and the trees remain there. The parties have stipulated that Dobson’s has paid all of the invoices except for Invoice No. 5810, totaling $12,580.00. There is no dispute that the trees at issue are “agricultural products” within the meaning of section 604.15(1). There is also no dispute that Dobson’s is a “dealer in agricultural products” within the meaning of section 604.15(2).
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 Doug Lancaster Farms, Inc., against Dobson’s Woods and Water, Inc., in the amount of $12,630.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry K. Dobson Dobson's Woods and Water, Inc. 851 Maguire Road Ocoee, Florida 34761-2915 Kelly Lancaster Doug Lancaster Farms, Inc. 3364 East County Road 48 Center Hill, Florida 33514 Western Surety Company Post Office Box 5077 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117-5077 Kristopher Vanderlaan, Esquire Vanderlaan & Vanderlaan, P.A. 507 Northeast 8th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34470 (eServed) Steven Hall, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 (eServed) Honorable Nicole “Nikki” Fried Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners sold nursery plant materials to Respondent U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. for which the latter did not pay.
Findings Of Fact On May 24, 1990, Jon's Nursery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. 460 Juniper plants, for $731.40 including tax. The plants were picked up by U.S. Lawns employee Mark Rosetta. U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. does not dispute the validity of the claim arising out of the May 24 sale. However, U.S. Lawns has never paid for these plant materials. On June 6, 1990, Jon's Nursery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. 40 Juniper plants and 50 grass plants for $166.95 including tax. These plants were picked up by Jeffrey Miller, who was an employee of U.S. Lawns. U.S. Lawns disputes the validity of the June 6 sale. However, the owner of U.S. Lawns, Glen Jaffee, never responded to numerous telephone calls from Pen Smith of Jon's Nursery, Inc. concerning the unpaid invoices. Nor did anyone respond to a certified demand letter that Mr. Smith mailed to U.S. Lawns on August 29, 1990, or the numerous monthly statements reflecting the unpaid balances. An officer and employee of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., Pat Oyler, had ordered the plant materials by telephone from Jon's Nursery, Inc. Mr. Oyler had previously ordered plant materials on behalf of U.S. Lawns from Jon's Nursery, which had always been paid. On two occasions subsequent to the sales in question, Mr. Oyler ordered plant materials from Jon's Nursery, Inc. on behalf of U.S. Lawns, but paid for them with his personal check, and Mr. Smith told him that he would need, in such cases, to order the plants in his name. On May 31, 1990, Concepts in Greenery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns ten 15-gallon crepe myrtles for $318 including tax. These items were picked up by Jeffrey Miller driving a U.S. Lawns truck. These plant materials had been ordered by Mr. Oyler of U.S. Lawns. Concepts in Greenery, Inc. had also previously done business with U.S. Lawns and been paid. In a sale which had taken place on March 25, 1990, Mr Oyler had ordered about $400 worth of plant materials on behalf of U.S. Lawns. Additionally, in its application for credit with Concepts in Greenery, Inc. dated April 11, 1988, Mr. Jaffee, as president of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., had certified that Mr. Oyler was vice president of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. Repeated telephone calls and monthly statements from Concepts in Greenery, Inc. to U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., as well as a certified letter dated September 19, 1990, to Mr. Jaffee, were unsuccessful in obtaining any response whatsoever from the latter company. Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. made several sales of a variety of plant materials to U S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. Including tax, these sales were as follows: March 13, 1990, for $131.18; March 26, 1990, for $544.05; April 5, 1990, for $12.24; April 6, 1990, for $90.10; April 17, 1990, for $593.60; April 18, 1990, for $55.65; and April 27, 1990, for $92.75. An eighth invoice dated June 4, 1990, for $581.15 has been excluded because it bears the names of Oyler Construction Company, Inc., Bentley Green, and Pat Oyler as the persons invoiced and nowhere mentions U.S. Lawns. The total of the seven sales to U.S. Lawns is $1519.57. Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. repeatedly tried to contact Mr. Jaffee and U.S. Lawns, including by letter dated August 27, 1990, but never received any response to its demand for payment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order requiring U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. to pay the above-indicated sums to the respective parties. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Pen Smith, Sales Manager Jon's Nursery, Inc. 24546 Nursery Way Eustis, FL 32726 Charles Brown, Nursery Manager Concepts in Greenery, Inc. 16366 Old Cheney Highway Orlando, FL 32833 David Rubright, President Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. 1921 Hill Drive Apopka, FL 32703 Glen Jaffee 612 Bryn Mawr Orlando, FL 32804 Bankers Insurance Company 10051 5th Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33702
The Issue This matter began with the filing of a complaint by Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc., (Homestead Tomato) with the Florida Department of Agriculture asserting that it was due $9,502.50 for tomatoes sold January 21, 1985, to Seymour Cohen Brokerage Company (Cohen Brokerage). While Cohen Brokerage did not appear, due to the death of the owner, Seymour Cohen, the surety on its Agricultural Products Bond, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland did appear. Because it represents the interest of Cohen Brokerage, in this order its position will be characterized as that of Cohen Brokerage. Cohen had already paid $16,360.00 for the tomatoes. The dispute centers upon the agreement between the parties as to the price of the tomatoes. The parties agree that the price was to be set after the tomatoes were shipped, due to an impending freeze which had caused volatility in the price for tomatoes. Homestead Tomato contends that other purchasers bought tomatoes at about the same time and agreed to the price which Homestead Tomato claims is due from Cohen Brokerage. Cohen Brokerage maintains that the price claimed is excessive, and that the payment made was full payment.
Findings Of Fact Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc., sells tomatoes as agent for Strano Farms of Florida City, Florida, which produces tomatoes. Cohen Brokerage is a licensed dealer in agricultural products holding license number 3047, which is supported by a bond written by the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, number 9634509. Seymour Cohen died, apparently before the complaint in this action was filed. See the Verified Suggestion of Death of Party and Motion to Dismiss filed on June 26, 1986. On Thursday, January 17, 1985, Rosario Strano, the President of Homestead Tomato, learned that a freeze would occur in South Florida on or about January 22, 1985. Strano notified Homestead Tomato's sales staff, including Thomas Banks, that beginning January 19, 1985, all sales were to be made at prices to be determined following the freeze. On January 21, 1985, Cohen Brokerage, acting through Rick Cohen (the son of Seymour Cohen, now deceased), purchased 1,600 boxes of Strano Pride #25, 6X7 (medium) tomatoes. Both parties testified that the price was not established on Monday, January 21, but that it would be established "sometime in the middle of the week" (Testimony of T. Banks, Transcript 177)) on or about Wednesday, January 23, 1985 (Testimony of R. Cohen, Transcript 225). This is consistent with the brokerage confirmation from Cohen Brokerage dated January 21, 1985, which was belatedly submitted to Homestead Tomato, stating that the tomatoes were "to be priced on or about Wednesday, 1/23/85, in line with Florida Tomato industry Market". The parties intended that the tomatoes would be priced by Wednesday, January 23, 1985, in accordance with the market price for U.S. number one tomatoes 85 percent or better. The freeze did occur on January 21 and 22, 1985, which caused a shortage of high quality unfrozen tomatoes. The expectation of the freeze had caused uncertainty in the market price for tomatoes during the period January 19 through January 25, 1985. From January 19 through January 22, 1985, Homestead Tomato sold 43 loads of tomatoes to buyers at prices to be determined later. On Wednesday, January 23, 1985, Rosario Strano set his price for 6x7 Strano Pride tomatoes at $16.00 a box and told sales staff to inform those who had purchased from Homestead Tomato before the $16.00 per box price had been set that they could return the tomatoes if they were dissatisfied with his price. According to Mr. Strano, he was unable to compare his prices the week after the freeze to what competitors were charging for like quality, unfrozen tomatoes because there were not enough others with tomatoes to make a price comparison. (Transcript 44-45). On January 23, Homestead Tomato's salesman Banks called Rick Cohen and gave him the price. The Florida Fruit and Vegetable Report is a market quotation service for agricultural commodities published by the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable Division and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Marketing, Bureau of Market News. It is used and generally relied on by those in agriculture. It shows that tomatoes sold January 21, 1985, were sold with sales prices to be established later. The January 24th edition of the report shows that on January 23, 6x7 tomatoes sold for $16.00 per box. Homestead Tomato also introduced evidence that other buyers purchased 6 x 7 tomatoes which were shipped between January 19 and January 23, 1985, who were invoiced at $16.00 per box and paid that amount. This evidence of price is undercut, however, by the testimony of Rosario Strano with respect to disputes he had with other tomato purchasers, such as acme Pre-Pack over his price of $16.00 for medium tomatoes. Under cross-examination about whether he had reduced his billing or given a discount to protesting purchasers, Mr. Strano testified: The only -- Way back last -- latter part of February, I told them I would not give rebates. I told Mr. -- when they bought future tomatoes, when we got back in the tomatoes, we would work out an arrangement. I never quoted $2. I heard quoted $2, 4, 6, 8. I never quoted the price. I told them that I understood their plight but that I was not -- they had to take that then and there, settle and pay in full, or I was not going to do anything, and [there] was a reason for that, [which] was to expedite the collections of some very, very serious money, as you can see in this [case] right here. Transcript pages 165-166. Cohen Brokerage was invoiced $16.00 per box on January 25, 1986, for the tomatoes it had received on January 21, 1985. The total amount of the bill was $25,862.50. Cohen Brokerage made a payment on the invoice in the amount of $16,360.00 which then caused Homestead Tomato to file the instant complaint for the balance billed of $9,502.50.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the complaint filed by Homestead Tomato against Cohen Brokerage be dimissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 2nd day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-3923A The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 7. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. 8. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 10. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 11. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as argument. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as inconsistent with the more significant testimony of Mr. Strano relied on in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as inconsistent with other evidence, see for example Petitioner's Exhibit #29. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected because the prices quoted were asking prices but not necessarily market prices. See Conclusion of Law 3. Rejected as a recitation of evidence. Rejected as a recitation of evidence. Rejected as a recitation of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent (Seymour Cohen Brokerage Company) Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Finding of Fact 3 and the statement of the issues. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 11. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as a conclusion of law. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 11. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. Scherer was unpersuasive because the methodology implied to determine the price of $10.00 per box for 6x7 tomatoes was not adequately explained. Rejected as unnecessary. Sentence 1 rejected as unnecessary. Sentence 2 covered in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Alexander J. Pires, Jr., Esquire 2501 M. Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20037 Murray H. Dubbin, Esquire 1000 Rivergate Plaza 444 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
