PREMIER TRAVEL INTERN., INC. v. STATE, DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE AND …, No. 1D02-3107
Decision Date | 17 July 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 1D02-3108, No. 1D02-3109., No. 1D02-3107 |
Parties | PREMIER TRAVEL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Travelease International, Inc., d/b/a Travelez, Brylec, Inc., d/b/a Brylec Marketing, Brian Yamhure and Henry Yamhure, Appellants, v. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Paul R. Ezatoff and Katherine E. Giddings, of Katz, Kutter, Alderman, Bryant & Yon, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
William N. Graham and Raymond C. Conklin, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
These consolidated cases are appeals from three immediate final orders (IFOs) issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the Department) pursuant to section 120.60, Florida Statutes, requiring Appellants to cease and desist from acting as sellers of travel and sellers of business opportunities. Because the orders are facially insufficient, we reverse.
Premier Travel International, Inc. (Premier), is a travel agency that conducts "travel training" and seminars. Travelease International, Inc. (Travelease), is a sales and administrative company. Brylec, Inc., is a telemarketing company. All three businesses operate from 871 East Commercial Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale. Either Henry Yamahure or his son, Bryan, owns the corporations.
On July 26, 2002, the Department filed a complaint and issued three IFOs. These documents, along with a later amended complaint, alleged that Appellants violated the Sellers of Travel Act and the Sellers of Business Opportunities Act by offering, in exchange for an investment of $6,000, travel agent training and services so that individuals could both receive discounted travel and sell travel to others. See §§ 559.80—559.815, 559.926—559.939, Fla. Stat. (2001). The first IFO suspended the seller-of-travel registration certificate of Premier, required Premier to cease operation as a seller of travel, and revoked Premier's security reduction. The second IFO suspended the registration certificate of Travelease and required that it cease operation as a seller of travel. The third IFO required Appellants to stop selling business opportunities. These orders were stayed by three separate orders of this Court.
The IFOs in this case violate due process because they are facially insufficient. IFOs issued prior to a hearing, as these were, must contain facts sufficient to demonstrate immediate danger, necessity, and procedural fairness. See, e.g., Witmer v. Dep't of Bus. and Prof'l Regulation, 631 So.2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
. These IFOs do not, on their face, demonstrate immediate danger, necessity, or procedural fairness.
Personal monetary losses can be the sort of danger addressed by section 120.60, Florida Statutes. See Stock v. Dep't of Banking and Finance, 584 So.2d 112 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
( ); Saviak v. Gunter, 375 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) ( ); Crudele v. Nelson, 698 So.2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) ( ); Wolf v. Gallagher, 629 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), (Saviak, in holding that no other member of the public was at risk from an insurance agent who failed to remit insurance premiums to two insurance companies) an IFO, and distinguishing .
In determining whether to affirm or reverse such an IFO, courts consider whether the pattern of conduct is likely to continue. In Saviak, this Court emphasized that the allegations reflected the continuing nature of the offense. Saviak, 375 So.2d at 1082. In Stock, the Fifth District noted that a sufficiently egregious past harm may justify an emergency order, particularly if it is "of a nature likely to be repeated." Stock, 584 So.2d at 115. However, in Crudele, this Court found that "the Commissioner sets forth no factual findings of a continuing pattern of conduct that must be stopped in order to prevent further harm to the public" and "no allegations or findings in the order suggest anything in Crudele's history as a licensed agent that would support an inference of such continuing conduct." Crudele, 698 So.2d at 880. And in Wolf, the Second District held that there was no allegation of danger to the public health, safety, and welfare because "nothing in the order indicates that any insured or other member of the public is at risk...." Wolf, 629 So.2d at 1067.
In the instant case, the IFOs do not indicate that the alleged conduct is likely to continue. The allegations of emergency were stated as follows in the first two orders:
Similar allegations of emergency were made in the third order, which reads:
The orders at issue in the instant case may have been intended to demonstrate that the harm inflicted by Appellants is of a nature that is likely to continue, through allegations that numerous customers were treated poorly and that Appellants attract customers by making phone calls and by representing that "[w]e are a full-service...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Showntail the Legend, LLC v. Fla. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation
... ... State of Florida DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ... Old Timers Rest. & Lounge, Inc. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco , 483 ... of immediate harm to children); Premier Travel Int'l, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Agric. & ... product."); see also Premier Travel Intern. , 849 So. 2d at 1136 (determining that ... ...
-
Allstate Floridian v. Office of Ins. Reg.
...981 So.2d 617 ... ALL STATE FLORIDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY; Allstate Indemnity ... Stat. (2007); Bio-Med Plus, Inc. v. Dep't of Health, 915 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Premier Travel Int'l v. Dep't of Agric. & Cons. Servs., ... ...
-
Field v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH, 1D05-0411.
... ... 1st DCA 2005); Premier Travel Int'l, Inc. v. Dep't of Agric., 849 So.2d ... ...
-
All State Floridian Insurance Company v. Office of Insurance Regulation, Case No. 1D08-0275 (Fla. App. 4/4/2008), Case No. 1D08-0275.
... ... Stat. (2007); Bio-Med Plus, Inc. v. Dep't of Health, 915 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Premier Travel Int'l v. Dep't of Agric. & Cons. Servs., ... ...