15-001732 Frontier Fresh Of Indian River, Llc vs. United Indian River Packers, Llc And Fidelity And Deposit Insurance Company Of Maryland, As Surety Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, August 27, 2015.

Summary: Respondent, a licensed citrus fruit dealer, violated the Florida Citrus Code by failing to pay Petitioner the full purchase price for grapefruit that the dealer had harvested from Petitioner's grove.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FRONTIER FRESH OF INDIAN RIVER,

LLC ,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 15 - 1732

UNITED INDIAN RIVER PACKERS,

LLC, AND FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT

INSURANCE COMPANY OF MARYLAND,

AS SURETY ,

Respondent s .

/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case came before Administrative Law Judge John G.

Van Laningham for final hearing in Vero Beach, Florida, on

June 16 , 20 1 5.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Fred L. Kretschmer, Esquire

Brennan & Kretschmer

1443 20th Street, Suite A

Vero Beach , Florida 3 2960

For Resp ondent United Indian River Packers, LLC :

Louis B. Vocelle, Jr., Esqu ire

Vocelle & Berg, LLP

3333 20th Street

Vero Beach , Florida 3 2960 - 2469

For Respondent Fidelity and Deposit Insurance Company of

Maryland :

( No appearance )

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue s in this case are whether Respondent , a licensed

citrus fruit dealer, violated the Florida Citrus Code by failing

to pay Petitioner the full purchase price for grapefruit that

the dealer had harvested from Petitioner's grove and sold in the

ordinary course of business to its (the dealer's) customers;

and, if so, the amount of the indebtedness owed by the dealer .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On February 15, 2015 , Petitioner Frontier Fresh of Indian

River, LLC , filed a Complaint with the Department of Agr iculture

a nd Consumer Services in which it alleged that Respondent United

Indian River Packers, LLC , a licensed citrus fruit dealer, had

failed to pay Petitioner the sum of $108,670.50 claimed to be

due under a contract for the purchase and harvesting of colored

gra pefruit. Respondent Fidelity and Deposit Insurance Company

of Maryland was named in the Complaint as surety.

In its Answer of Respondent, the dealer denied Petitioner's

allegations and requested a hearing. Shortly thereafter, the

agency forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative

Hearings , which opened a file on March 25, 2015 .

The final hearing was conducted on June 16, 2015 , at the

Indian River County Courthouse in Vero Beach, Florida.

Petitioner and United Indian River Packers, LLC , were

represented by counsel at the hearing. As witnesses, Petitioner

called Michael Perry, its grove manager; and Chad Durrell, a

former employee of the dealer . Petitioner 's E xhibits 1 through

7 were received in evidence without obje ction. Preston Perrone,

Thomas P . Kennedy, and Kenneth P. Kennedy testified on behalf of

the dealer, of whom each is an officer or employee.

Respondent ' s Exhibit 1 and 2 were admitted into evidence as

well .

The two - volume final hearing transcript was fil ed on

July 8 , 2015. The parties timely filed proposed recommended

orders on the established due date, which (after an extension)

was August 3 , 2015. These papers were carefully considered in

the preparation of this Recommended Order.

U nless otherwise in dicated, citations to the official

statute law of the state of Florida refer to Florida Statutes

2015.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner Frontier Fresh of Indian River, LLC

(" Seller ") , is in the business of growing citrus fruit and hence

is a "producer" as that term is defined in the Florida Citrus

Code. § 601.03(33), Fla. Stat.

2. Respondent United Indian River Packers , LLC (" Buyer ") ,

is a "citrus fruit dealer" operating within the regulatory

jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Serv ices (the "Department") . See § 601.03 (8 ), Fla. Stat.

3. On September 6, 2013 , Seller and Buyer entered into a

Production Contract Agreement (the "Contract") under which Buyer

agreed to purchase and harvest red and flame grapefruit (both

generally called "colored grapefruit") then growing in Seller's

"Emerald Grove" in St. Lucie County. Buyer promised to pay

Seller $7.75 per box plus " rise " for all colored grapefruit

harvested from the Emerald Grove during the 2013 /2014 season.

("Rise" is an addit ional payment due Seller if Buyer's net

revenue from marketing the fruit exceeds the Contract price or

"floor payment . " ) The Contract gave Buyer and its "agents,

employees and vehicles" the right to "enter upon SELLER'S

premises . . . from time to time fo r the purpose of inspecting,

testing and picking fruit, and for the purpose of removing said

fruit."

4 . Buyer was obligated to make scheduled payments to

Seller totaling $250,000 between September and December 2013,

with the balance of the floor payment " to be made within 45 days

from week of harvest." The deadline for making the final rise

payment was June 30, 2014.

5 . T he Contract described the Seller's duties as follows :

SELLER agrees to maintain the crop

merchantable and free from Citrus Canker,

Medi terranean fruit fly, Caribbean fruit

fly, and any and all impairments which would

alter the ability to market the crop. It is

further agreed that in the event of such

happening BUYER has the option to

renegotiate with SELLER within 10 days of

such find, o r terminate contract and receive

any monies that may be remaining from

deposit.

It is understood and agreed that the word

" merchantable " as herein used, shall mean

fruit that has not become damaged by cold,

hail, fire, windstorm, insects, drought,

disease or any other hazards to the extent

it cannot meet all applicable requirements

of the laws of the State of Florida and the

Federal Government, including without

limitation those relating to pesticides, and

the regulations of the Florida Department of

Citru s relating to grade and quality.

6 . With regard to default, the Contract provided:

It is further agreed that in case of default

by e ither t he BUYER or SELLER the opposite

party m ay, at his option, take legal action

to enforce this contra ct or may enter into

negotiations to carry out the terms and

provisions ther eof, in which event the party

found to be in de fault shall pay reasonable

costs in connection with either ne g otiation

or li tigation , such cost to include a

reasonable attorney 's fe e to party

prevailing in such con troversy.

The Contract acknowledge d the existence of a " Citrus Frui t

Dealers Bond " posted with the Department but caution ed that the

bond " is not insu rance a gainst total 1iabilities that may be

incurred if a citrus fruit dealer s hould default" and "d oes not

necessarily insure full payment of claims for any nonperformance

under this contract. "

7 . Buyer began picking colored grapefruit from the Emerald

Grove on October 17, 2013, and i nitially things went well . For

t he first month, Buyer achiev ed encouraging packout percentages

of between 60% and 90%. (The packout percentage expresses the

ratio of fruit deemed acceptable for the fresh market to the

total fruit in the run. A higher packout percentage means fewer

" eli minations " for the juice processing plant and thus a more

valuable run.) On November 13, 2013, however, the packout rate

plunged to around 38%. Although there were some good runs after

that date, for the rest of the season the packout percentages of

grapefruit picked from the Emerald Grove mostly remained mired

in the 30% to 50% range, which is considered undesirably low.

Everyone agrees that the 2013/2014 grapefruit crop in the

Emerald Grove was disappointing.

8 . Representatives of Buyer and Seller met at the Emerald

Grove in mid - November to discuss the reduced packout

percentages. Mild disagreement about the exact reason or

reasons for the d rop - off in quality arose, but some combination

of damage by rust mites and a citrus disease known as greasy

spot is the likeliest culprit. 1 / The problems were not unique to

Emerald Grove, as the 2013/2014 citrus season was generally poor

in the state of F lorida. Seller's grapefruit crop was

consistent with the statewide crop for that year.

9. Despite the low packout percentages, and being fully

aware of the crop's condition, Buyer continued to harvest

colored grapefruit from the Emerald Grove , which it packed and

exported for sale to its customers in Europe, Japan, and

Southeast Asia. After picking fruit on February 3, 2014,

however, Buyer repudiated the Contract and left th e colored

grapefruit remaining in the Emerald Grove to Seller . As a

result, Seller sold the rest of the crop to another purchaser . 2 /

10. At no time did Buyer notify Seller that it was

rejecting any of the grapefruit which Buyer had picked and

removed from the Emerald Grove pursuant to the Contract.

11. For months after Buyer sto pped performing under the

Contract, Seller endeavored to collect the amounts due for all

the fruit that Buyer had harvested. By mid - April, however,

Buyer still owed several hundred thousand dollars. At a meeting

between the parties on April 22, 2014, Buyer proposed that

Seller discount the purchase price given the disappointing

nature o f the crop, which Buyer claimed had caused it to lose

some $200,000 in all . Buyer requested that Seller forgive

around $100,000 of the debt owed to Buyer, so that Selle r , in

effect, would absorb half of Seller's loss es .

12. Buyer expected that Seller would agree to the proposed

reduction in price and maintains that the parties did, in fact,

come to a meeting of the minds in this regard, but the greater

weight of the evi dence shows otherwise. Seller politely but

firmly ÏÏ and unequivocally ÏÏ rejected Buyer's proposal, although

Seller agreed to accept installment payments under a schedule

that would extinguish the full debt by August 31, 2014. This

response disappointed Buy er, but Buyer continued to make

payments to Seller on the agreed upon payment schedule.

13. By email dated June 4, 2014, Buyer's accountant asked

Seller if Seller agreed that the final balance due to Seller was

$108,670.50. Seller agreed that this was th e amount owing.

After that, Buyer tried again to persuade Seller to lower the

price, but Seller refused. Buyer made no further payments.

14. At no time did Buyer notify Seller that it was

revoking its acceptance of any of the fruit harvested from the

Em erald Grove during the 2013/2014 season. Having taken

physical possession of the fruit, Buyer never attempted to

return the goods or demanded that Seller retrieve the fruit.

Rather, exercising ownership of the goods, Buyer sold all the

colored grapefruit obtained under the Contract to its customers

for its own account.

15. On October 14, 2014, Seller brought suit against Buyer

in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, in and

for Indian River County, Florida, initiating Case Number

31 - 2014 - CA - 001046. Buyer filed a counterclaim against Seller

for breach of contract. On February 4, 2015, Seller filed a

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of its judicial complaint, opting

to take advantage of available administrative remedies instead,

which it is pursuing in this proceeding. As of the final

hearing, Buyer's counterclaim remain ed pending in the circuit

court.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1 6 . The Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") has

personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding

pursuant to s ections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

1 7 . Chapter 601 of the Florida Statutes is known as the

Florida Citrus Code (the "Code"). See § 601.01, Fla. Stat .

"Citrus fru it" is defined in section 601.03(7) as

all varieties and regulated hybrids of

citrus fruit and also . . . processed citrus

products containing 20 percent or more

citrus fruit or citrus fruit juice. The

term does not, for purposes of this chapter,

mean lim es, lemons, marmalade, jellies,

preserves, candies, or citrus hybrids for

which specific standards have not been

established by the department.

Additionally, the term "grapefruit" is defined to mean " the

fruit Citrus paradisi Macf ., commonly called grapefruit. The

term includes the white, red, and pink meated varieties of

grapefruit . " § 601.03(2 4 ), Fla. Stat.

1 8 . The term "citrus fruit dealer" is defined in

s ection 601 .03(8) to mean:

any consignor, commission merchant,

consignme nt shipper, cash buyer, broker,

association, cooperative association,

express or gift fruit shipper, or person who

in any manner makes or attempts to make

money or other thing of value on citrus

fruit in any manner whatsoever, other than

of growing or prod ucing citrus fruit. The

term does not include retail establishments

whose sales are direct to consumers and not

for resale or persons or firms trading

solely in citrus futures contracts on a

regulated commodity exchange .

Buyer is a citrus fruit dealer under this definition.

19 . Citrus fruit dealers are required to be licensed by

the Department in order to transact business in Florida. See

§ 601.55(1), Fla. Stat . As a condition of obtaining a license,

such dealers are required to provide a cash bond or a

certificate of deposit or a surety bond " for the use and benefit

of every producer and of every citrus fruit dealer with whom the

dealer deals in the purchase, handling, sale, and accounting of

purchases and sales of citrus fruit ." § 601.61(3), Fla. Stat .

20 . Section 601.65 provides that "[i]f any licensed citrus

fruit dealer violates any provision of this chapter, such dealer

shall be liable to the person allegedly injured thereby for the

full amount of damages sustained in cons equence of such

violation ." This liability may be enforced in an administrative

action brought before the Department or in a "judicial suit at

law in a court of competent jurisdiction." Id. The citrus

dealer's bond, however, cannot be called upon to sat isfy a

judgment " or other legal process issuing out of or from " a court

of law should the aggrieved person pursue judicial remedies .

This is because the l egi slature intended " that such citrus

dealer' s bond . . . shall be applicable and liable only for the

payment of claims duly adjudic ated by order of the Department."

Id.

2 1 . Section 601.64(4), Florida Statutes, provides that it

is " unlawful in, or in connection with, any transaction relative

to the purchase, handling, sale, and accounting of sales of

ci trus fruit " for any 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 .

22 . Any person may file a complaint with the Department

alleging a violation of the Code by a citrus fruit dealer. See

§ 601.66(1), Fla. Stat . 3 / The Department is charged with the

responsibilities of determining whether the allegations of the

complaint ha ve been established and , if so, of adjudicating the

amount of indebtedness or damages owed by the citrus fruit

dealer. See § 601.66(5), Fla. Stat . If the dealer is found

liable, th e Department order shall "fix a reasonable time within

which said ind ebted ness shall be paid by the dealer," and, if

the dealer does not pay within the time specified by the

Department, the Department shall obtain payment of the damages

from the dealer's surety company, up to the amount of the bond.

See § 601.66(5) and (6), Fla. Stat .

2 3. The Contract between Seller and Buyer was for the sale

of goods. Thus , the transaction at issue is governed by

chapter 672, Florida Statutes, which is known as the Uniform

Commercial Code Ï Sales (" Article 2 "). See § 672.101 , Fla. Stat .

A rticle 2 "applies to transactions in goods." The term "goods"

includes "growing crops" as described in section 672.107(2),

which states:

A contract for the sale apart from the land

of growing crops or other things attached to

realty and capable of severan ce without

material harm thereto . . . is a contract

for the sale of goods within this chapter

whether the subject matter is to be severed

by the buyer or by the seller even though it

forms part of the realty at the time of

contracting, and the parties can by

identification effect a present sale before

severance.

Article 2 controls the question of whether Buyer failed to make

full payment of amounts allegedly due Seller ÏÏ and thereby

committed an administrative offense as defined in section

601.64(4) ÏÏ " because the transaction falls within [chapter 672's]

scope and definition." Cent . Fla. Antenna Serv., Inc. v.

Crabtree , 503 So. 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

2 4. Seller bore the burden of proving the allegations in

its Complaint against Buyer by a preponderance of the evidence.

See Fla. Dep ' t of Transp . v. J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778,

788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Fla. Dept . of HRS v. Career Serv .

Comm ' n , 289 So. 2d 412, 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); § 120.57(1)(j),

Fla. Stat .

25. Under Article 2, the " buyer must pay at the contract

rate for any goods accepted ." § 672.607(1), Fla. Stat.

Section 672.606(1) provides that acceptance occurs when the

buyer:

( a) After a reasonable opportunity to

inspect the goods signifies to the seller

that the goods are conforming or that the

buyer will take or retain them in spite of

their nonconformity; or

(b) Fails to make an effective rejection

[after having] had a reasonable opportunity

to inspect [the goods] ; or

(c) Does any act inconsistent with the

seller ' s ownership; but if such act is

wrongful as against the seller it is an

acceptance only if ratified by her or him.

26. To make an effective rejection of goods, the buyer

must "seasonably notif[y] the seller" that the goods are

rejected. § 672.602(1). "A ft er rejection any exercise of

ownership by the buyer with respect to any commercial unit is

wrongful as against the seller ." § 672.602( 2 ) (a). " If the

buyer has before rejection taken physical possession of goods

. . . , the buyer is under a duty after rejection to hold them

wit h reasonable care at the seller' s disposition for a time

sufficient to p ermit the seller to remove them."

§ 672.602(2)( b ).

27 . As found above, Buyer exercised ownership of the

grapef ruit it harvested from Seller's Emerald Grove ,

notwithstanding any blemishes on the fruit , and used the goods

as product for sale to its own customers. Like the purchaser in

H.P. Dev elopment and Management Corp. v. P. Lafer Enter prises ,

Inc. , 538 So. 2d 1379, 1381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), whose conduct

was found clearly to establish acceptance, Buyer "kept the

delivered goods, used them [as intended] and, at most, wanted a

lower price because of their alleged non - conformity." Buyer

accepted the colored grapefruit, and it failed to make an

effective rejection of the goods.

28 . When Buyer accepted the fruit, it likely assumed that

any nonconformity would be seasonably cured through an

adjustment of the price. Therefore, Buyer might have been

within its rights to r evoke its acceptance of the goods without

breaching the Contract . See § 672.608 (1)(a) , Fla. Stat. Such

revocation, however,

must occur within a reasonable time after

the buyer discovers or should have

discovered the ground for it and before any

substant ial change in condition of the goods

which is not caused by their own defects.

It is not effective until the buyer notifies

the seller of it.

§ 672.608 (2 ) . Buyer never provided Seller notice of revocation,

and its sale of the grapefruit to others in the ordinary course

of Buyer's business is inconsistent with revocation in any

event. See H.P. Dev. & Mgmt. Corp . , 538 So. 2d at 13 81. Buyer,

in short, did not revoke its acceptance of the goods.

29. Seller therefore is entitled to recover from Buyer the

full contract price for the goods accepted, together with

incidental damages. § 672.709(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Buyer's

failure or refusal to pay Seller the balance due under the

Contract, which is $108,670.50, is an unlawful act as defined in

section 601. 64 and hence constitutes a violation of the Code,

giving rise to an indebtedness which the Department is

authorized to adjudicate, and reduce to final order, pursuant to

section 601.66.

30. In addition to demanding repayment of the debt, Seller

seeks to recover interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Seller

is entitled to recover simple interest on the outstanding

principal balance of $108,670.50 at the statutory rate from

June 4, 2014. See § 687.01, Fla. Stat.; § 55.03, Fla. Stat.;

see also United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Smith , 527 So. 2d 281,

283 - 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)(improper to award compound statutory

interest). It is a ministerial duty of the Department to add

the appropriate amount of prejudgment interest to the principal

amount of damages awa rded in the final order. See Argonaut Ins.

Co. v. May Plumbing Co. , 474 So. 2d 212, 215 (Fla. 1985).

31 . Seller's claim for attorney's fees and costs is

another matter. Under Article 2, r ecoverable incidental damages

" include any commercially reasonab le charges, expenses or

commissions incurred in stopping delivery, in the

transportation, care and custody of goods after the buyer ' s

breach, in connection with return or resale of the goods or

otherwise resulting from the breach. " § 672.710 , Fla. Stat .

Attorney's fees, however, are not awardable under section

672.710 as incidental damages. Fla. Nat'l Bank v. Alfred & Ann

Goldstein Found., Inc. , 327 So. 2d 110, 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

Seller has not sought to recover any incidental damages as

defined i n the statute.

3 2 . T he Contract provides for an award of attorney's fees

and litigation costs to the party who pre v ails in any action for

breach, but s ection 601.6 6 does not clearly authorize the

Department to enforce such a contractual provision in

determining the "amount of indebtedness or damages due to be

paid by the dealer to the complainant . " T he undersigned need

not resolve the jurisdictional issue, however, because it is not

ripe until a prevailing party is identified. T he Department may

re mand th is matter to DOAH for an evidentiary hearing on the

amount of reasonable fees and costs to be included in the final

order if it interprets the statute as allowing an award of

prevailing - party attorney's fees and costs to be made pursuant

to a fee - sh ifting agreement .

3 3 . Buyer's failure to properly reject, or revoke

acceptance of, the grapefruit purchased under the Contract does

not itself preclude Buyer from making a claim for breach of

warranty. See U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. N. Am. Steel Corp. , 335

So. 2d 18, 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Crabtree , 503 So. 2d at 1353 -

54. 4 / Buyer, in fact, has brought an action for breach against

Seller, which as mentioned above remain ed pending in circuit

court when this case came to hearing .

3 4 . Section 601.66 d oes not specifically authorize a

citrus fruit dealer to pursue a counterclaim against a

complainant who has alleg ed that the dealer violated the Code.

It is not necessary in this case , however, to decide whether the

Department has jurisdiction to entertain a dealer's counterclaim

for breach of warranty, 5 / or to make findings and conclusions

relevant exclusively to Buyer's claim against Seller, because

Buyer has not sought to recover damages in t his forum.

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 awarding Frontier Fresh of

Indian River, LLC , the sum of $108,670.50 , together with

pre - award interest at the statutory rate from June 4, 2014, to

the date of the final order, and establishing a reasonable time

within which said indebtedness shall be paid by United Indian

River Packers, LLC.

DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August , 20 1 5 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 27th day of August , 20 1 5.

ENDNOTES

1 / For reasons that will be made clear, it is not necessary for

the undersigned to make detailed findings regarding the cause(s)

of the relatively low yield of fresh - fruit quality grapefruit

from the Emerald Grove in 2013/2014. No finding is made or

implied here, one way or the other, on the question of whether

the grapefruit sold under the Contract were nonconforming or

whether Seller breached, e.g., the warranty of merchantability.

2 / Seller is no t seeking to recover damages for the losses, if

any, sustained from this resale of the remaining crop.

3 / A complain ant need not be a licensee to travel under section

601.66. Rather, any person who claims to have been damaged by a

dealer's violation of the Code has standing to maintain this

type of administrative action. Accordingly, Buyer's Motion for

Involuntary Dismiss al, included in its Proposed Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law, is denied.

4 / After having accepted the goods, however, the pu rchaser "must

within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or should

have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be

barred from any remed y." § 672.607(3)(a), Fla. Stat.

5 / To elaborate, a proceeding under section 601.66 is not a

suit for breach of contract even though it resembles a civil

action of that nature. Rather, a complaint filed pursuant to

section 601.66 invokes the Department's regulatory jurisdiction

to determine whether a licensed dealer subject to agency

oversight ha s violated the Code, and if so to remedy such

violation. In an administrative proceeding such as this one, a

breach of contract by the licensed dealer amounts to a

regulatory violation because section 601.64(4) makes it so, but

what is being enforced admi nistratively is the Code, not a

contract. A dealer's counterclaim for breach of contract, in

contrast, would be an action to enforce the contract, not the

C ode. A claim for "breach of contract is ordinarily a matter

for judicial rather than administrativ e or quasi - judicial

consideration." V incent J. Fasano, Inc. v. Sch. Bd. of Palm

Beach Cnty., Fla. , 436 So. 2d 201, 202 - 03 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

Therefore, if Buyer were seeking to enforce the Contract

administratively by asserting before the Department a claim for

breach of warranty, for example, then a question involving

subject matter jurisdiction would be presented.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Fred L. Kretschmer, Esquire

Brennan & Kretschmer

1443 20th Street, Suite A

Vero Beach, Florida 32960

(eServed)

Louis B. Vocelle, Jr., Esquire

Vocelle & Berg, LLP

3333 20th Street

Vero Beach, Florida 32960 - 2469

(eServed)

Fidelity and Deposit Insurance

Company of Maryland

Attn: Bond Claim Department

1400 American Lane

Schaumberg, Illinois 60196

Paul J. Pagano, Bureau Chief

Bureau of Mediation and Enforcement

Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services

Rhodes Building, R - 3

2005 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 6500

(eServed)

Honorable Adam Putnam

Commissioner of Agricult ure

Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services

The Capitol, Plaza Level 10

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0810

Lorena Holley , General Counsel

Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services

407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 080 0

(eServed)

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 issu e the final order in this case.