Florida Statute 601.66 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXV
AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE, AND ANIMAL INDUSTRY

Chapter 601
FLORIDA CITRUS CODE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 601.66

601.66 Complaints of violations by citrus fruit dealers; procedure; bond distribution; court action on bond.—

(1) Any person may complain of any violation of this chapter by any citrus fruit dealer during any shipping season by filing of a written complaint with the Department of Agriculture at any time before May 1 of the year immediately after the end of such shipping season. Such complaint shall briefly state the facts, and the Department of Agriculture shall thereupon, if the facts alleged prima facie warrant such action, forward true copies of such complaint to the dealer in question and also to the surety company on the dealer’s bond. The dealer at such time shall be called upon, within a reasonable time to be prescribed by the Department of Agriculture, either to satisfy the complaint or to answer the complaint in writing, either admitting or denying the liability.

(2) If the dealer admits the violation but fails to satisfy the complaint within the time fixed by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Agriculture shall thereupon order payment by the dealer of the damages sustained.

(3) If the dealer, in her or his answer to the original complaint, denies the violation alleged, the Department of Agriculture shall thereupon determine whether the facts and circumstances set forth in the complaint have been established by competent substantial evidence.

(4) If the Department of Agriculture determines that the complaint has not been so established as aforesaid, the order shall, among other things, dismiss the proceeding.

(5) If the Department of Agriculture determines that the allegations of the complaint have been established as aforesaid, it shall make its findings of fact accordingly and thereupon adjudicate the amount of indebtedness or damages due to be paid by the dealer to the complainant. The administrative order shall fix a reasonable time within which said indebtedness shall be paid by the dealer.

(6) Upon failure by a dealer to comply with an order of the Department of Agriculture directing payment, the Department of Agriculture shall call upon the surety company to pay over to the Department of Agriculture, out of the bond theretofore posted by the surety for such dealer, the amount of damages sustained but not exceeding the amount of the bond. The proceeds to the Department of Agriculture by the surety company shall, in the discretion of the Department of Agriculture, be paid to the original complainant or held by the Department of Agriculture for later disbursement, depending upon the time during the shipping season when the complaint was made, when liability was admitted by the dealer, when the proceeds were so paid by the surety company to the Department of Agriculture, the amount of other claims then pending against the same dealer, the amount of other claims already adjudicated against the dealer, and such other pertinent facts as the Department of Agriculture in its discretion may consider material. The Department of Agriculture, if it decides to pay the proceeds to the original complainant, may order an increase in the original bond of the dealer to such higher sum as the Department of Agriculture would be justified under all the circumstances so as to protect other possible claimants and to exercise all powers otherwise confided to it under this chapter to enforce the posting of such increased bond. The Department of Agriculture also, in its discretion as the facts and circumstances might appear to it, may hold the amount of such proceeds until such later time, up to the time when all claims have been filed during the allotted period after the closing of the shipping season and such claims adjudicated, and may disburse the total proceeds in its possession paid over to it by the surety company on the dealer’s bond as such claims were adjudicated to the various claimants, paying first to the producers the amount of their claims in full, if such proceeds are sufficient for such purpose, and if not, then in pro rata shares to such producer claimants. The balance of any additional proceeds in the hands of the Department of Agriculture, after all claims of producers have been paid in full, shall be paid to claimants who are citrus fruit dealers, either in whole or in pro rata portion, as the aggregate of their claims may bear to the amount of such additional proceeds.

(7) Upon failure of a surety company to comply with a demand for payment of the proceeds of a citrus fruit dealer’s bond pursuant to administrative orders entered by the Department of Agriculture fixing amounts due claimants, the Department of Agriculture shall within a reasonable time file in the Circuit Court in and for Polk County an original petition or complaint setting forth the administrative proceedings before the Department of Agriculture and ask for final order of the court directing the surety company to pay the proceeds of the bond to the Department of Agriculture for distribution to the claimants.

(8) In any court proceeding filed under subsection (7), the findings of facts and orders of the Department of Agriculture shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, and if in such suit the Department of Agriculture is successful and the court affirms the Department of Agriculture’s demand for payment from the surety company, the Department of Agriculture shall be allowed all court costs incurred therein and also reasonable attorney fees to be fixed and collected as a part of the costs of the suit.

(9) The bond required to be posted by citrus fruit dealers under s. 601.61 shall be subject, and so conditioned therein, only to payment of claims duly adjudicated by the Department of Agriculture. All proceeds from such bonds shall be paid over by the surety company directly to the Department of Agriculture, to be disbursed by it to successful claimants in whose favor the Department of Agriculture has entered administrative order or orders. Such funds shall be considered trust funds in the hands of the Department of Agriculture for the exclusive purpose of satisfying orders of indebtedness duly adjudicated. Cash bonds which may be posted by citrus fruit dealers in lieu of surety company bonds shall occupy the same legal status as funds paid over by the surety company to the Department of Agriculture for payment of claims.

History.—s. 66, ch. 25149, 1949; s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 1, ch. 65-77; ss. 14, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 7, ch. 71-185; ss. 4, 5, ch. 73-199; s. 1, ch. 77-117; s. 6, ch. 78-95; s. 1, ch. 78-100; s. 2, ch. 81-318; ss. 1, 3, ch. 85-129; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 55, ch. 92-291; s. 981, ch. 97-103; s. 50, ch. 2012-182.

F.S. 601.66 on Google Scholar

F.S. 601.66 on Casetext

Amendments to 601.66

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 601.66

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 601.66.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 601.66

Total Results: 13

Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority v. Cormio

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1980-01-23

Citation: 388 So. 2d 1238

Snippet: , 212 So.2d 866 (Fla. 1968), enforcing Section 601.66(4), Florida Statutes (1965), which directed certiorari

State Ex Rel. Dept. of General Serv. v. Willis

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1977-03-29

Citation: 344 So. 2d 580

Snippet: notwithstanding other administrative remedies in 601.66 and .67; and 604.30(2), regulating agricultural

Florida Fruit Sales, Inc. v. Kingfisher Groves

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1976-08-04

Citation: 343 So. 2d 840, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 16173

Snippet: contract. We grant the writ. Florida Statutes § 601.66 provides for the Commissioner to determine claims

Holly Hill Fruit Products Co., Inc. v. Bob Staton, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1973-01-31

Citation: 275 So. 2d 583, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7092

Snippet: jurisdiction *585 of the matter under Fla. Stat. § 601.66 (1971), F.S.A. The entire controversy should have

Bowen Bros., Inc. v. Connor

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1972-03-17

Citation: 259 So. 2d 509, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7097

Snippet: by certiorari to the circuit court pursuant to § 601.66(4), F.S.1969, F.S.A., which provides in pertinent

Growers Marketing Service, Inc. v. Conner

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1971-06-11

Citation: 249 So. 2d 486, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6379

Snippet: Marketing Service complained, pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 601.66 (1969), F.S. A., that Jack Goldtrap contracted

Arvida Corporation v. City of Sarasota

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1968-08-30

Citation: 213 So. 2d 756, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5213

Snippet: to quash for lack of jurisdiction in view of § 601.66(4) and (5), F.S.A., which provide that a party

Tyner v. Woodruff

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1968-01-17

Citation: 206 So. 2d 684, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 6103

Snippet: entered on January 22, 1965, F.S.1963, Section 601.66, F.S.A. provided that if any citrus dealer did

Alderman v. Conner

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1967-12-08

Citation: 205 So. 2d 25, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4192

Snippet: contends that Chapter 601, Florida Citrus Code, § 601.66(5), Fla. Stats., (1965), F.S.A. provides a specific

Gulf American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Davis

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1965-02-26

Citation: 172 So. 2d 636

Snippet: Commissioner of Agriculture as authorized by § 601.66, F.S.A. The Commissioner of Agriculture entered

Alderman v. Conner

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1963-03-27

Citation: 152 So. 2d 819, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3667

Snippet: administrative order of the commissioner issued under §§ 601.66 — 601.68, or 601.70 shall be deemed to have been

Townsend Fruit Co. v. Mayo

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1957-11-06

Citation: 98 So. 2d 345

Snippet: connection with any such transaction;” Section 601.66, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that: “Any

Schaefer v. Voyle

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1924-08-01

Citation: 88 Fla. 170, 102 So. 7

Snippet: S. E. Rep. 1025; Stetson v. Stetson, 200 Ill. 601, 66 N. E. Rep. 262; In re Willitt's Estate (N. J.)