CopyCited 16 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...Hitchcock responded with a general denial, affirmative defense of failure of consideration and a counterclaim for negligence and breach of warranty. Ferry-Morse then moved to strike the counterclaim and affirmative defense, arguing that Hitchcock's failure to comply with section 578.26(1), Florida Statutes (1977), complaint and notice requirements precluded his bringing legal action. [It remains undisputed that Hitchcock failed to file a complaint with the Florida Department of Agriculture and give notice to Ferry-Morse within ten days after discovering the seed defect as required by the Florida Seed Law, section 578.26(1).] Hitchcock opposed this motion to strike arguing that: (1) the ten day filing requirement of Section 578.26(1) was not a statute of limitations barring claims of breach of warranty or negligence; and (2) even if the counterclaims are barred by the statute, he could still raise the alleged defects in the seeds as an affirmative defense of failure of consideration....
...QUESTION 1: By failing to file a complaint with the Florida Department of Agriculture within ten days after defect in the seed became apparent is said farmer barred from maintaining a legal action for damages against the seller based on theories of negligence or breach of warranty? Hitchcock contends that section 578.26 administrative complaint requirements should be applicable only to those claims based upon alleged defects in the labelling of the seed and do not compel the filing of a complaint where the farmer's claim is based upon breach of warranty and negligence....
...re negligently mislabeled and sold as "Gator Green 15" bean seeds to Counter-Plaintiff WILLIAM F. HITCHCOCK d/b/a HITCHCOCK PACKING HOUSE in Alachua, Alachua County, Florida. (Emphasis added). After a thorough examination of both sections
578.09 and
578.26(1) of the Florida Seed Law, the trial court aptly found Hitchcock's counterclaim to be subject to the Seed Law's notice requirements, stating: Section
578.26, Florida Statutes (1977) provides, in pertinent part: (1) When any farmer is damaged by the failure of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seed to produce or perform as represented by the label attached to such seed as requi...
...essential elements of the cause of action are present. 1 Fla.Jur.2d Actions § 30 (1977). The right to recover against the seed dealer is conditioned upon the aggrieved farmer's compliance with the administrative complaint and notice requirements of section 578.26(1)....
...a timely investigation and report of the alleged problem. However, where a farmer does not comply with the Florida Seed Law's notice requirements he should not be absolutely prohibited from raising failure of consideration as an affirmative defense. Section 578.26(1), Florida Statutes (1977), establishes the proper procedure under which a farmer may bring an action against the seed dealer *962 for problems arising in the seed....
...seller has actual knowledge of the alleged defects in the seed, although such knowledge was not acquired within ten days of the discovery of the defect by the farmer? Hitchcock submits that Ferry-Morse waived the complaint and notice requirements of section 578.26(1), Florida Statutes (1977), in that after the time for filing the administrative complaint and giving notice had expired, the seller became aware of Hitchcock's problem with his crop. In the alternative Hitchcock submits that Ferry-Morse is estopped from raising Hitchcock's failure to comply with section 578.26(1) as a bar to his bringing legal action....
...nsaction and filed suit to collect the purchase price two years after the expiration of the administrative complaint period. We find such conduct in no way evidences an intent to relieve Hitchcock of his duty to comply with the notice requirement in section 578.26(1)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4430, 1995 WL 238788
...In the complaint, Interlatin related that after having acquired the seeds, it "delivered the seeds to Del Fargo, S.A., an agricultural company in Panama to grow honeydew on their behalf." The defendants directed motions to dismiss which alleged that the plaintiff had failed to comply with section 578.26, Florida Statutes (1991), by not filing an administrative complaint against the defendants with the Florida Department of Agriculture for resolution by the Seed Investigation and Conciliation Council, an adjunct of the Department of Agriculture....
...The trial judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, without prejudice, explicitly and solely predicating the dismissal on that ground. Interlatin appeals, and we reverse with directions. Interlatin argues that it is not a "farmer," and is not subject to the requirements of section 578.26, and thus should be allowed to proceed with litigation. Implicit in the trial judge's dismissal was the determination that *255 Interlatin was a "farmer" under section 578.26, such that as a prerequisite to its right to maintain a legal action against the defendants, it must first file a sworn complaint with the Department of Agriculture alleging the damages sustained....
...llegiate Dictionary 303 (7th ed. 1963). Applying these definition to Interlatin, although the company argued it was not a farmer, its own pleadings demonstrate that it did, in fact, fit that classification and thus was subject to the requirements of section 578.26....
...ll the seeds to the Panamanian grower, but bought the seeds in order to produce the melon crop. Because the seeds were sold and purchased in Florida, the fact that the seeds were ultimately grown in Panama by a Panamanian company is not controlling. Section 578.26 provides that when a farmer is damaged by the failure of agricultural seed to perform as represented by the required seed label, the farmer shall make a sworn complaint against the dealer alleging the damages sustained. The statute further provides that the farmer's administrative complaint, filed with the Department of Agriculture, is a prerequisite to the farmer's right to maintain a legal action against the dealer from whom the seed was purchased. § 578.26(1)(a), Fla....
...Stat. (1991). While the statute makes clear that any determination made by the Department or its agency is non-binding, the statute provides for investigation, public and informal hearing, findings, and recommendation on the matters complained of. § 578.26(3)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. (1991). Nonetheless, under these circumstances, where Interlatin failed to fulfil the administrative prerequisites of section 578.26 prior to filing a legal action against the defendants, its suit against the defendants was premature, and the more provident remedy at the trial level would have been to grant an abatement of the action until Interlatin fulfilled those statutory prerequisites....
...tances such as these would be avoided. For these reasons, the order of involuntary dismissal is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for imposition of an abatement of the action, pending Interlatin's compliance with the requirements of section 578.26, Florida Statutes (1991)....
CopyPublished | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2013 WL 1196626, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47631
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY AND FOR RELIEF FROM SCHEDULING ORDER MARK E. WALKER, District Judge. This case concerns the sale of allegedly defective watermelon seeds and the statutory prerequisite(s) to filing a legal action pursuant to section 578.26, Florida Statutes....
...Defendant replied with Defendant Syngenta Seeds, Inc.’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Stay, ECF No. 17. Upon review of the parties’ papers and the hearing held on March 12, 2013, the Motion is hereby DENIED. The issue before the Court is whether the prerequisite to legal action expressed in section
578.26(l)(a) required a prospective plaintiff to simply file a sworn complaint with the Department or whether the entire process set forth in. sections
578.26 and
578.27 (“Process”) must first be completed....
...ffect to the title ... which was placed at the beginning of the section by the legislature itself. The title is more than an index to what the section is about or has reference to; it is a direct statement by the legislature of its intent.”). III. Section
578.26, Florida Statutes Section
578.26, titled “Complaint, investigation, hearing, findings, and recommendation prerequisite to legal action,” states that When any farmer is damaged by the failure of agricultural, vegetable, flower, or forest tree seed to produce or perform as represented by the label attached to the seed as required by s.
578.09, as a prerequisite to her or his right to maintain a legal action against the dealer from whom the seed was purchased, the farmer shall make a sworn complaint against the dealer alleging damages sustained. Fla. Stat. §
578.26 (l)(a) (emphasis added)....
...The remainder of the statute, along with section
578.27, proceeds to discuss the manner in which the complaint should be filed; the dealer’s obligation to answer the complaint; and the process by which the complaint would be investigated, reviewed, hearing held, findings made, and recommendation rendered. Fla. Stat §§
578.26-27. A. Section Heading Syngenta argues that section
578.26’s heading should be read as statutory text to create ambiguity and evidence the legislature’s intent that the completion of the Process be the prerequisite(s) to legal action. Although the heading does in fact appear to be inconsistent with the text of section
578.26, specifically subsection (l)(a), that issue is not before the Court because the heading is not statutory text and the actual text is not ambiguous....
...ot both “text.” B. Subsection (l)(a) in Context Syngenta next argues that the language of subsection (l)(a) identifying a sworn complaint as the sole prerequisite to legal action should be read in the context of the other subsections of sections
578.26 and
578.27, and in doing so, either ambiguity arises as to the required prerequisite(s) and/or the other subsections of sections
578.26 and
578.27 are rendered meaningless contrary to Florida law....
...See Koile,
934 So.2d at 1233 (“[C]ourts should avoid a reading that would render part of a statute meaningless.” (internal citation and quotations omitted)). TRA does not oppose reading subsection (l)(a) in the context of the remainder of sections
578.26 and
578.27, but disagrees that the meaning of subsection (l)(a) is rendered ambiguous or that the remainder of the subsections are rendered meaningless as a result. The Court recognizes and applies the Florida standard advanced by Syngenta but finds that subsection (l)(a)’s express language is still clear and unambiguous even when read in context of the entirety of sections
578.26 and
578.27....
...The complaint shall be filed with the department, and a copy of the complaint shall be served by the department on the dealer by certified mail, within such time as to permit inspection of the crops, plants, or trees ... by the dealer from whom the seed was purchased. Fla. Stat. § 578.26 (l)(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court finds that the Legislature had a well-reasoned basis for drafting section 578.26 as it is written to put prospective defendants on notice whether it be in a legal or non-legal setting....
...ription of a variety of provisions as is almost always the case with the title of a chapter and frequently the case with the'heading of a lengthy section containing numerous subsection." Val-Pak,
862 So.2d at 6 (emphasis added). In the instant case, section
578.26 is composed of four subsections, each with their own subparts, spanning the initial filing of a sworn complaint, the subsequent Process, and the authority of the Department *1255 to adopt rules to govern the Process. By its very language, section
578.26 is the type of statute which the court in Vai-Pak was distinguishing itself from to justify reading the “legislature's detailed description of a relatively simple statutory subsection’’ as part of the operative text....
