12-000161 Schiller Investments, D/B/A Shell Creek Groves vs. Gulf Citrus Marketing, Llc And Suntrust Bank, Inc., As Surety Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, May 24, 2012.

Summary: Partnership named as party in an agreement is party. Failure to register fictitious name waived if purposes of statute achieved. Election of remedies in ?601.65 requires action in circuit court before claim with Agriculture.

Case No. 12-0161

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHILLER INVESTMENTS, d/b/a )

SHELL CREEK GROVES, RECOMMENDED ORDER )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. )

)

GULF CITRUS MARKETING, LLC, )

A ND )

SUNTRUST BANK, INC., AS SURETY, )

Respondents. )

)

)

Administrative Law Judge John D. C. Newton, II, of the

Division of Administrative Hearings heard this case, as noticed,

on April 3, 2012, by video teleconference at locations in

Ft. Myers and Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Brian Michael Beason, Esquire

Wilkins Frohlich

18501 Murdock Circle, Sixth Floor

Port Charlotte, Florida 33948

For Respondent: Robin Supp, Esquire

Arnstein and Lehr, LLC

Two Harbor Place

302 Knights Run Avenue, Suite 1100

Tampa, Florida 33602

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

A. Is the general partnership, Schiller Investments, a

party to the fruit purchase agreement that is the subject of

this proceeding with standing to bring a claim for payment?

B. Does the failure of Schiller Investments to register

"Shell Creek Groves" as a fictitious name require abating this

proceeding? 1/

C. Does the election of remedies provision of section

601.65, Florida Statutes (2011) 2/ prohibit the Florida Department

of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Division of

Administrative Hearings from taking jurisdiction of this matter?

D. Is Gulf Citrus Marketing, LLC, liable to Schiller

Investments in the amount of $259,817.41?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On November 28, 2011, Schiller Investments, d/b/a Shell

Creek Groves (Schiller Investments), filed an Amended Complaint

against Gulf Citrus Marketing, LLC (Gulf Citrus) and SunTrust

Bank with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services (Department) seeking payment under a fruit purchase

agreement. The Department provided Notice of the Complaint and

the amendment to Gulf Citrus and SunTrust Bank. Gulf Citrus

answered the complaint; denied the validity of the complaint;

asserted that Schiller Investments was not a party to the

agreement and, therefore, did not have standing to bring the

complaint; asserted that Schiller Investments could not proceed

on account of failure to comply with Florida's Fictitious Name

Act; and requested an administrative hearing. The Department

referred the matter to the Florida Division of Administrative

Hearings (DOAH) on January 12, 2012, for conduct of the

requested hearing. SunTrust Bank did not respond to the

complaint or appear in this proceeding.

On January 24, 2012, the matter was scheduled for final

hearing to be held on April 3, 2012. On March 13, 2012, Gulf

Citrus filed a Notice of Related Case and Motion to Raise

Counterclaims. During a pre-hearing telephone conference

conducted on March 13, 2012, the undersigned asked the parties

to provide memoranda addressing the issue of whether the law

permitted counter-claims in this proceeding. Neither party

filed a memorandum. On March 15, 2012, Gulf Citrus filed a

Withdrawal of Motion to Raise Counterclaims.

The hearing convened as scheduled by video teleconference

at locations in Tallahassee and Ft. Myers, Florida. Gulf Citrus

immediately moved to abate the proceeding on the basis of

Schiller Investments' alleged failure to comply with Florida's

Fictitious Name Act. The undersigned reserved ruling. This

Recommended Order addresses the issue.

Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 3/ , 11, 12, 13, 14,

15, 16, 17, 18, 19 (also accepted as Respondent's 2), and 20 of

Schiller Investments were admitted into evidence. Schiller

Investments presented the testimony of Friedrich Schiller and

George Winslow.

Gulf Citrus Exhibits 2 (also accepted as Petitioner's 19)

and 20 were admitted into evidence. Gulf Citrus also presented

the testimony of Friedrich Schiller and George Winslow.

The parties ordered a transcript. It was filed with DOAH

on May 4, 2012. The parties timely filed proposed recommended

orders. They have been considered in preparation of this

Recommended Order. The parties have a number of other disputes

involving the fruit purchase agreement. They include setoff

claims, disputes about payment for grove maintenance, and

arguments about whether the Fruit Purchase Agreement is

canceled. At least some of these issues are the subject of

circuit court litigation. They are not the subject of this

proceeding or resolved by it.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Schiller Investments is a general partnership formed by

Friedrich Schiller and his wife, Barbara Ann Schiller, in Kansas

on February 1, 2005. In the transactions involved in this

matter, Mr. Schiller acted on behalf of Schiller Investments

with full authority as a general partner.

2. Although Schiller Investments has sometimes used the

name Shell Creek Groves in business transactions, Schiller

Investments has never registered Shell Creek Groves as a

fictitious name in Florida.

3. Schiller Investments and Mr. Schiller also used the

name Shell Creek Citrus interchangeably with Shell Creek Groves.

They also did not register Shell Creek Citrus as a fictitious

name.

4. Respondent, Gulf Citrus Marketing, LLC (Gulf Citrus),

is a licensed fruit dealer in Florida. George Winslow is the

managing member of Gulf Citrus and acted on behalf of Gulf

Citrus in all of the communications and transactions with

Mr. Schiller and Schiller Investments involved in this matter.

5. On September 23, 2009, Schiller Investments and Gulf

Citrus entered into Gulf Citrus Marketing Fruit Purchase

Agreement No. 936 (Purchase Agreement). Mr. Winslow drafted the

agreement with the assistance of a lawyer. Mr. Winslow has a

college degree in agronomy. In contrast, Mr. Schiller's formal

education ended with completion of the eighth grade.

6. Mr. Schiller executed the Purchase Agreement on behalf

of Schiller Investments. Mr. Winslow executed it on behalf of

Gulf Citrus. The signature blocks in the document, drafted by

Mr. Winslow and Gulf Citrus's lawyer, do not state the position

either man held in the entities on whose behalf they signed, as

shown below. But it is plain they are signing on behalf of an

entity not as individuals.

SELLER:

SCHILLER INVESTMENTS dba

Shell Creek Groves

By: __________________

Name: Friedrich Schiller

BUYER:

GULF CITRUS MARKETING, LLC

By: _____________________

Name: George Winslow

7. The Purchase Agreement was a contract between Gulf

Citrus and Schiller Investments.

8. The Purchase Agreement provided for Gulf Citrus to

purchase all oranges grown in the Prairie Grove and Shell Creek

Grove for four consecutive citrus seasons, beginning with the

2009-2010 season and ending with the 2012-2013 season. The

Purchase Agreement provides specific descriptions by survey

coordinates of the Charlotte County locations of the groves.

Shell Creek Grove is much larger than Prairie Grove. It

produced the vast majority of the oranges.

9. From 2009 to present day, Mr. Schiller has owned Shell

Creek Grove. Mr. Winslow always knew that Mr. Schiller owned

Shell Creek Grove. Mr. Winslow brokered the foreclosure sale of

the grove to Mr. Schiller from Metropolitan Life. Before then,

Mr. Winslow was one of three co-owners of Shell Creek Grove.

From May 17, 2002, until January 25, 2012, Prairie Groves, LLC,

owned the Prairie Grove.

10. Throughout the course of their various dealings,

Mr. Winslow was aware that Mr. Schiller controlled both groves

and business dealings involving them. He regularly communicated

with Mr. Schiller about the groves and dealt exclusively with

him on matters involving the groves.

11. The Purchase Agreement provides that in the event of

the sale of the groves, Gulf Citrus has the right, but not the

obligation, to terminate the agreement. It contains other

clauses that give Gulf Citrus the right to terminate the

contract in certain circumstances. The Purchase Agreement also

gives Gulf Citrus the right to assign or transfer the Purchase

Agreement to any third party or successor in interest.

12. Schiller Investments timely delivered the oranges from

both groves for the 2010-2011 season, as provided in the

Purchase Agreement. The oranges satisfied all of the quality

standards and other requirements of the Purchase Agreement.

Gulf Citrus accepted the oranges. It in turn sold the oranges

and received payment for them. Gulf Citrus has not paid

$259,817.41 owed for the oranges.

13. During this time, Mr. Winslow experienced financial

difficulties. Mr. Schiller allowed Mr. Winslow time to cure his

problems and pay the debt. In September and October, 2011,

Mr. Schiller communicated regularly with Mr. Winslow and his

staff about the unpaid amount and Gulf Citrus's plan to pay it.

Mr. Winslow promised payment several times and explained various

plans to raise the money, including re-financing real estate.

But he never delivered.

14. One scheme Mr. Winslow proposed was for Schiller

Investments to enter into a new fruit purchase agreement with a

New Jersey company named Johanna Foods. Mr. Schiller chose not

to do this. He had reasonable concerns. They were the fact

that Johanna Foods was not a licensed Florida Fruit dealer 4/ ,

that he was unfamiliar with the company, and that the proposal

included an unexplained payment described as a "bonus" that was

to make up for the money Gulf Citrus had not paid.

15. Mr. Winslow did not propose to assign the agreement to

Johanna Foods. And Gulf Citrus never assigned the agreement. 5/

16. Mr. Winslow acknowledged the failure to pay in writing

on October 25, 2011. The letter he wrote and signed that day in

Mr. Schiller's presence reads:

Fred Schiller

1. It is my intent to pay Shell Creek Grove

$259,818.00, of past due fruit proceeds due;

on or about Nov 10

th subject to refinancing

of property owned by George Winslow.

In the interim I will advise you weekly of

the progress beginning November 1 st .

George Winslow [signature]

2. In the event payment is not tendered to

Shell Creek Grove by Nov 15 th Gulf Citrus

Marketing will cancel the Fruit Purchase

agreement between Gulf Citrus Mkt. and Shell

Creek Grove.

George Winslow [signature]

17. On October 28, 2011, Mr. Schiller sent Mr. Winslow a

handwritten letter stating he was terminating the Purchase

Agreement. The letter quoted verbatim below states:

Dear George,

Due to your financial difficulties and your

inability to meet your obligations in a

timely manner I am terminating the

agreements between "Prairie Grove-Shell

Creek Citrus" and your companies at Gulf

Citrus effective Nov. 30

th 2011. I like to

thank your staff especially Lori for

everything they have done in the past years.

Thank you

Fred Schiller

Prairie Creek Groves

Shell Creek Citrus

Cc: Lory

Sabrina

18. Mr. Schiller and Mr. Winslow have done business with

each other since 2001. They and the entities that they

controlled were engaged in other business relationships,

including ones involving Prairie Grove and Shell Creek Grove.

They included business relationships with Citrus Sweet, Inc.,

and Florida Gulf Citrus Management, Inc.

19. The relationships included an agreement between Mr.

Schiller and Gulf Citrus Management, a Mr. Winslow entity, for

management of the Shell Creek Grove.

20. In the course of their business dealings, Mr. Schiller

twice provided Mr. Winslow with copies of the Schiller

Investments partnership agreement. He provided it personally to

Mr. Winslow in 2002. He provided it to Mr. Winslow's staff in

2008 or 2009. 6/ Through Mr. Winslow, Gulf Citrus was fully aware

of the parties that it was dealing with in all the business

relationships including the Purchase Agreement.

21. Gulf Citrus has sued Mr. Schiller in circuit court for

claims involving the Purchase Agreement. There is no evidence

that Schiller Investments has filed suit in circuit court.

There is also no evidence that Gulf Citrus filed its circuit

court action before the Department took jurisdiction of the

claim of Schiller Investments.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Preliminary Matters

22. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties to and the

Stat. (2012).

23. As the complainant, Schiller Investments bears the

burden of proving the allegations of the complaint by a

preponderance of the evidence. See Dep't. of Banking & Fin.,

Div. of Sec. & Inv. Prot. v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d

932, 934 (Fla. 1996)("The general rule is that a party asserting

the affirmative of an issue has the burden of presenting

evidence as to that issue"); Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C.

Co., Inc ., 396 So. 2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Vero Beach

Land Co., LLC v. IMG Citrus, Inc., Case No. 08-5435 (Fla. DOAH

Mar. 4, 2009; Dep't Agric. & Consumer Serv. July 20, 2009),

aff'd IMG Citrus, Inc. v. Vero Beach Land Co., LLC , Case No.

4D09-3353 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

24. Although this is a dispute about whether Gulf Citrus

is responsible for paying for oranges delivered to it and sold

by it, there is no dispute about delivery of the oranges or the

money owed for them. There is no question that Gulf Citrus owes

$259,817.41 for the oranges. Instead, Gulf Citrus relies upon

the theories raised in its response that Schiller Investments

does not have standing to bring this action and that the action

must be abated because Schiller Investments did not register

Shell Creek Groves as a fictional name. In its post-trial

papers, Gulf Citrus also advances the argument that DOAH lacks

jurisdiction because of a pending related circuit court

proceeding.

Standing

25. Gulf Citrus's argument that Schiller Investments does

not have standing to bring this action rests on Mr. Winslow's

assertion that he thought he was doing business with

Mr. Schiller individually, the fact that the signature block on

the purchase agreement does not identify Schiller Investments as

a partnership, and the fact that Mr. Schiller's signature for

Schiller Investments on the Purchase Agreement does not state

that he is a partner. 7/

26. Gulf Citrus's standing argument, which is really an

argument that Mr. Schiller is an indispensable party, fails for

several reasons. Mr. Winslow's claim that Mr. Schiller, not

Schiller Investments, is the proper party is contrary to the

facts. The Purchase Agreement states in the introductory

paragraph and in the signature block that Schiller Investments

is the party selling the oranges. Nothing in the document

supports a conclusion that it is a contract of Mr. Schiller

individually. The claim is also not credible since Mr. Schiller

previously provided Mr. Winslow copies of the Schiller

Investments partnership agreement.

27. Gulf Citrus's argument is nothing more than a claim

that the Purchase Agreement is unenforceable because the

signature block did not say "Schiller Investments, a general

partnership," and Mr. Schiller's signature did not include the

designation "general partner." The position is disingenuous in

that Mr. Winslow did not indicate his position or the nature of

his authority to bind Gulf Citrus when he signed the Purchase

Agreement.

28. The position is also incorrect. Gulf Citrus cites no

authority for its position. Florida's partnership laws and

court interpretations of them do not support the argument.

29. Florida law requires that limited liability

partnership names end with a designation indicating that they

are a limited liability partnership. § 620.9002, Fla. Stat.

The general partnership statutes do not impose a similar

requirement. See Ch. 620, Part II, Fla. Stat. Florida courts

apply the statutory construction canon expressio unius est

exclusio alterius ; the mention of one thing implies the

exclusion of another. See Pro-Art Dental Lab, Inc. v. V-

Strategic Grp., L.L.C. , 986 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2008); State v.

Hearns , 961 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2007). The express requirement for

one type of partnership to designate its nature in its name and

the absence of a similar requirement for the other type leads to

the conclusion that the legislature did not intend to require

general partnerships to include in their name something

identifying them as partnerships.

30. Partnerships may be held liable for obligations if

they do not identify themselves as partnerships, even if they do

not have an express partnership agreement. Evidence can

establish that parties are partners from actions and statements

even if there is no partnership agreement and the parties deny

that they are partners. Perez v. Hernandez , 323 So. 2d 4 (Fla.

3d DCA 1975). This further establishes that nothing requires a

partnership to identify itself as a partnership in order to act

as one or be held to account as one.

31. Gulf Citrus's argument also fails because under

Florida and Kansas law, as a general partner, Mr. Schiller's

signature binds Schiller Investments. Each partner of a

partnership is an agent of the partnership for purpose of its

business. § 620.8301, Fla. Stat.; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 56a-301

(2011).

32. At this stage in the fulfillment of the Purchase

Agreement, assertions about whether Mr. Schiller is the

responsible individual are immaterial. Under Florida and Kansas

law, all partners to a partnership are jointly and severally

liable for all partnership obligations. § 620.8306 Fla. Stat.;

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 56a-306 (2011). Consequently, Mr. Schiller

was also personally bound by the Purchase Agreement, just as

Mr. Winslow claims he relied upon Mr. Schiller being.

Fictitious Name Registration

33. Gulf Citrus's effort to apply the fictitious name

statute fails from the outset. Application of existing law to

the undisputed material facts does not support the effort. A

person or entity using a fictitious name is required to register

it with the Division of Corporations of the Department of State.

§ 865.09(3), Fla. Stat. Gulf Citrus relies upon the statute's

penalty provision. It states that a business which has not

registered its fictitious name "may not maintain any action,

suit, or proceeding in any court of this state until this

section is complied with." § 865.09(9)(a), Fla. Stat. Under

well-established law, an agency is not a court. Art. V, § 1,

Fla. Const.; Chs. 25, 26, & 34, Fla. Stat.; § 120.52(1), Fla.

Stat.; § 20.22(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Dep't of Rev. v. WHI Ltd.

P'shp , 754 So. 2d 205, 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Rice v. Dep't of

HRS , 386 So. 2d 844, 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The fictitious

name statute does not apply in this proceeding.

34. The facts, also, do not support application of the

fictitious name statute. The name of the complainant here,

Schiller Investments, is on the Purchase Agreement, as well as

the purported fictitious name, Shell Creek Groves.

Consequently, from the beginning of the relationship, Gulf

Citrus and Mr. Winslow knew the identity of the party with which

they were doing business. This is not a situation in which

someone is doing business using only a fictitious name and thus

obscuring or concealing the identity or location for the real

party in interest. A tribunal may waive compliance with the

fictitious name statute and imposition of its penalty when the

purposes of the statute are met and non-compliance does not

prejudice the opposing party. Jackson v. Jones , 423 So. 2d 972

(Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Pinellas Cnty. v. Lake Padgett Pines , 333

So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976); Dr. Fred Hatfield's

Sportstrength Training Equip. Co. v. Balik , 174 F.R.D. 496 (M.D.

Fla. 1997).

35. Gulf Citrus argues that it is prejudiced because it

would have brought various counterclaims against Mr. Schiller if

he was a party. But Gulf Citrus has not identified any

authority for bringing counterclaims in this proceeding.

36. The penalties of the fictitious name statute should

not be applied because the purpose of the fictitious name

statute was always fulfilled in the transactions involved here.

There was no confusion about who the agent for Schiller

Investments was or where the responsibility for delivering the

oranges from Prairie Grove and Shell Creek Grove rested.

37. The Purchase Agreement is for Schiller Investments to

provide the oranges from the two groves to Gulf Citrus. The

oranges were delivered. Who owned the groves is not

dispositive. The Purchase Agreement demonstrates this. It

permits cancelation if ownership changes, but does not require

it. This is not surprising since the whole purpose of the

Purchase Agreement is for one party, Gulf Citrus, to purchase

the oranges produced from two specific groves from another

party, Schiller Investments. Changes in ownership matter only

if they affect delivery of the oranges or their condition. Here

there is no question that the oranges produced from those groves

were delivered timely and in good condition.

Election of Remedies

38. Gulf Citrus relies upon Lloyd Citrus Trucking, Inc. v.

State Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Serv. , 572 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th

DCA 1990), to argue that Schiller Investments may not bring this

claim. That opinion holds that section 601.65, Florida

Statutes, creates alternative remedies. It also holds that if a

party brings suit in circuit court before bringing an

administrative complaint with the Department, the Department

does not have jurisdiction to hear a later complaint based on

the same liability. The record does not support the argument.

39. There is no evidence that Schiller Investments brought

a circuit court action. Consequently, there is no evidence that

it elected a circuit court remedy instead of the administrative

remedy. The only circuit court action established in the record

is one by Gulf Citrus. And there is no evidence of when that

action was filed. So, even if it would trigger the holding of

Lloyd Citrus , there is no proof that the action was filed before

this administrative proceeding.

Gulf Citrus's Liability to Schiller Investments

40. Florida law establishes a comprehensive structure of

regulation and enforcement for the citrus industry. It includes

registration, quality criteria, contract requirements, bond

requirements, and an administrative contract enforcement

process. Ch. 601, Fla. Stat.; Vero Beach Land Co., LLC v. IMG

Citrus, Inc., Case No. 08-5435 (Fla. DOAH March 4, 2009; Dep't

Agric. & Consumer Serv. July 20, 2009), aff'd IMG Citrus, Inc.

v. Vero Beach Land Co., LLC , Case No. 4D09-3353 (Fla. 4th DCA

2010). Section 601.64(4), Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful

for any citrus fruit dealer:

to fail or refuse truly and correctly to

account and make full payment promptly in

respect of any such transaction in any such

citrus fruit to the person with whom such

transaction is had, or to fail or refuse on

such account to make full payment of such

amounts as may be due thereon, or to fail

without reasonable cause to perform any

specification or duty express or implied

arising out of any undertaking in connection

with any such transaction;

41. Gulf Citrus received the fruit produced from Prairie

Grove and Shell Creek Grove in the 2010-2011 season, as provided

in the Purchase Agreement. Gulf Citrus did not make full

payment for the fruit. It committed an unlawful act prohibited

by section 601.64(4).

42. Section 601.65 makes a fruit dealer like Gulf Citrus

liable to any person injured by any violation of chapter 601,

Florida Statutes, for the full amount of damages sustained as

consequence of the violation. The facts here show that Schiller

Investments suffered damages of $259,817.41 as a consequence of

the violation. Gulf Citrus is liable to Schiller Investments

for the amount of $259,817.41.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is Recommended that the Department enter a final

order approving the claim of Schiller Investments against Gulf

Citrus Marketing, LLC, in the amount of $259,817.41.

DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2012, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone]

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 24th day of May, 2012.

ENDNOTES

1/ Gulf Citrus does not argue that Schiller Investments must be

registered as a fictitious name, only Shell Creek Groves.

2/ All citations to the Florida Statutes are to the 2011 edition

unless otherwise noted.

3/ Page 44, lines 15-20, of the transcript erroneously identify

the exhibit being admitted as 15.

4/ Florida law requires non-retail purchasers of citrus fruit to

be licensed. §§ 601.03(8) & 601.55, Fla. Stat.

5/ This factual finding and others in this Recommended Order

require some determination of the credibility of Mr. Schiller

and Mr. Winslow. When their testimony conflicted in material

ways, Mr. Schiller was judged more credible based upon his

demeanor, the rationality of his testimony, and consistency of

his testimony with documents in evidence.

6/ See footnote 5.

7/ Gulf Citrus does not argue that all partners of Schiller

Investments must be parties to this proceeding.

COPIES FURNISHED

:

Christopher E. Green, Esquire

Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services

Office of Citrus License and Bond

Mayo Building, M-38

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800

Patti Herndon

SunTrust Bank, Inc.

1225 South Tamiami Trail

Punta Gorda, Florida 33950

George A. Winslow

Gulf Citrus Marketing, LLC

5377 Duncan Road

Punta Gorda, Florida 33982

Alice Wiggins

Florida Department of Citrus

Post Office Box 9010

Bartow, Florida 33831-9010

Brian Michael Beason, Esquire

Wilkins Frolich, P.A.

18501 Murdock Circle, 6th Floor

Port Charlotte, Florida 33948

Robin Supp, Esquire

Arnstein and Lehr, LLC

Two Harbor Place

302 Knights Run Avenue, Suite 1100

Tampa, Florida 33602

Lorena Holly, General Counsel

Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services

407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800

Honorable Adam Putnam

Commissioner of Agriculture

Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services

The Capitol, Plaza Level 10

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.