STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ) LICENSING BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 79-2403

)

DAVID COBB, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case was heard pursuant to notice on March 25, 1980, by Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. This case arose on an Administrative Complaint filed against David Cobb by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board alleging that Cobb had violated Section 468.112(2)(a) and (h) , Florida Statutes, by willfully violating local codes and abandoning a job.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Michael E. Egan, Esquire

217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: David Cobb, pro se

16146 James Couzens Freeway Detroit, Michigan 48221

ISSUE

Whether the Respondent willfully violated local building codes and abandoned a job.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. David Cobb is a registered general and registered roofing contractor with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The job in question was done in Gainesville, Florida. Gainesville has a local building code, having adopted the Southern Standard Building Code, but does not have a local competing board.

   
   

2. Cobb entered into a contract with John Larramore for a room addition to Larramore's home. Larramore paid Cobb a total of $2,475.84 on the job which was priced as $4,080.24, an amount which included the price of floor covering which both parties acknowledged would be purchased by Larramore and deducted from the monies paid Cobb.

3. Cobb began work on the project. Larramore was not happy with the craftsmanship on the job, which was overseen by Cobb's foreman. Eventually, Larramore contacted a friend who was a contractor. This friend indicated to Larramore that the job should be inspected by the building inspectors of Gainesville, and Larramore contacted the Building Department of Gainesville. Pending inspection by the Department, Larramore told Cobb to stop work until he was contacted again. The chief building official, Leslie Davis, inspected the Larramore job on May 4, 1979. He found several violations of the local building code. Davis was accompanied by the Board's investigator, Herman Cherry.

   
   

4. Davis contacted Cobb and advised him to correct the code violations. Davis sent Cobb a letter on May 10, 1979, outlining the violations and giving Cobb 14 days to correct these violations. See Exhibit 5. Cobb tried to contact Larramore by telephone without success concerning correction and completion of the job. Eventually, Cobb wrote Larramore an undated letter, Exhibit 4, which was written after the inspection by Davis and Cherry on May 4, 1979. Larramore was uncertain of the date he received the letter but did acknowledge it was after the Davis/Cherry inspection. Larramore did not contact Cobb after he received Cobb's letter. Instead, he contracted with another contractor to complete the job. This contractor began work on May 17, 1979.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

5. Section 468.112(1)(a) , Florida Statutes, provides that it is a violation for a contractor to willfully violate local building codes. The proof of willful intent is generally based on the failure of the contractor to correct violations after they are brought to his attention. Section 468.112(1)(I) , Florida Statutes, provides that it is a violation for a contractor to abandon a job.

   
   

6. In the instant case, there was no question that violations existed. This issue is whether Cobb refused to correct them. By his letter, Exhibit 4, Cobb indicated his willingness to correct any unsatisfactory workmanship and to complete the job. Larramore admitted that he did not respond to this letter. Cobb had been given 14 days to correct the violations by Davis' letter of May 10, 1979. Larramore had already contracted with another contractor to complete the job, and this contractor was on the job seven days before the suspense date set by Davis. The facts clearly show that Larramore did not permit Cobb to finish the job. Under these circumstances, Cobb cannot be said to have abandoned the job, and because he was not permitted back on the site he cannot be held responsible for the failure to correct the code violations. In the absence of the opportunity to correct the violations, Cobb cannot be said to have willfully violated the local code.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board take no action against David Cobb.

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Michael E. Egan, Esquire

217 South Adams Street Mr. David Cobb

Post Office Box 1306 16146 James Couzens Freeway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Detroit, Michigan 48221

Docket for Case No: 79-002403

Orders for Case No: 79-002403