STATE OF FLORIDA ye _ DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Ay CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD 4. o3 DIVISION I DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, Case No. 98-19681 vs. ZDISLAW S. SZARAPKA, also known as Stan Szarapka, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ("Petitioner"), files this Administrative Complaint before the Construction Industry Licensing Board, against ZDISLAW S. SZARAPKA; ("Respondent"), and says: 1. Petitioner is the state agency ‘charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. 2. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a Certified General Contractor, in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CG C018621. 3. Respondent's address of record and last known address is 28 Pacific Drive, Palm Coast, Florida 32145. 4. t all times material hereto the Respondent was licensed in an individual capacity and in such capacity was responsible for his contracting activities. EXHIBIT * 5. At no time material hereto was the Respondent licensed in any capacity with the Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Chapter 489 that would permit him to contract in the name of Florida East Coast Properties, Inc. 6. On or about November 13, 1995, the Respondent, doing business as Florida East Coast Properties, Inc., a company he did not qualify with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, entered into a contract with Kazimierz and Maria Charchut (Charchuts) for. the construction of a single family residence to be located at 8 Farmsworth Drive, Palm Coast, Flagler County, Florida, for a contract price of $124,000. “7. The contract price was subsequently amended to $138,000 to reflect changes that included installation of wooden floors and movement of the location of the residence back further into the property, thereby requiring a longer driveway. 8. Between September and November of 1995, the Charchuts paid the Respondent a total of $44,000 of the contract price towards construction of the residence. 9. The contract between the parties required that the Respondent hold an initial $12,400.00 in an escrow account by Florida East Coast Properties, Inc. 10. The Respondent failed to escrow any of the $44,000.00 he was given by the Charchuts. 11. The Respondent and the Charchuts also prospectively entered into a three year lease agreement for the residence that the Respondent had contracted with the Charchuts to puild. 12. The commencement date of the lease was July 1, 1996, and it provided that the Respondent would pay the Charchuts $850.00 per month to lease the residence and use it as a model home. The lease agreement was separate from the construction project, but formed a large part of the Charchuts decision to contract with the Respondent for construction of their residence. 13. Despite having been paid a total of $44,000.00 of the $138,000.00 contract price by November of 1995, the Respondent failed to start construction on the project in 1995 or 1996. 14. Instead, between 1995 and October of 1997, the Respondent failed to appear at several scheduled construction loan closings arranged by the Charchuts, and of which he had notice. 15. The Respondent failed to give reasonable explanations for his failure to attend the closings and sign the necessery paperwork that was required for the Charchuts to obtain financing for construction of their residence. 16. On each of the closing dates that the Respondent failed to attend, the Charchuts had to fly down from their primary home in New York to attend the closings. 17. This cost the Charchuts a significant amount of money and resulted in no benefit to them. 18. In accordance with the lease agreement, the Respondent paid the Charchuts a total of 9,350 in monthly rental payments, commencing July of 1996. He then stopped making the payments, stating that as the project had not been completed, resulting in a residence that could be used by him as a model home, he was not going to make payments. 19. Between November of 1995, and October of 1997, despite having received $44,000, the only action taken by the Respondent towards construction of the Charchuts residence was to clear the lot. 20. On October 30, 1997, the Respondent attended the fourth scheduled closing, and finally signed the required title ‘company and bank paperwork. 21. At the closing, the lending institution required the Respondent to return $16,726.25 of the $44,000 paid to him by the Charchuts in 1995, leaving the Respondent at the time of closing with a total amount of $27,273.75 that he had been paid for the construction project by the Charchuts. 22. By the time of the October 1997 closing the Respondent had $27,273.75 of the Charcuts money, yet he failed to commence construction on the project in a timely manner following the closing. 23. Bfter the October 1997 closing, the Charchuts were repeatedly reassured by the Respondent that construction on their residence would commence promptly, but despite his repeated reassurances he did not commence the construction project. 24. Instead, between October of 1997 and the beginning of May of 1998, the Respondent did not commence construction on the project. 25. The Respondent did not apply for the required building department permit from the local Flagler County Building Department until May 7, 1998. The permit was issued to the Respondent on June 23, 1998. 26. The construction project should have taken no more than four to six months to complete. 27. Following the issuance of the permit in June of i998, the Respondent commenced construction on the project by pouring the foundation slab for the construction project. 28. In August of 1998, the Charchuts authorized SouthTrust Bank to pay the Respondent the first construction draw amount of $14,769.40. 29. In addition to the $14,769.40 paid directly to the Respondent, SunTrust Bank also paid $5,656.40 directly to Rinker Materials Corporation for materials and/or labor provided to the construction project, and an additional $1,894.00 was paid to Mastercraft Plumbing for materials and/or labor furnished to the construction project. 30. The total first draw amount was $22,320.00. 31. Despite having been paid the first draw, the only work done on the construction project between May and September of 1998 was pouring the foundation, and installation of rough plumbing. 32. After payment of the first draw to the Respondent on or about August 10, 1998, little if any work was done on the project. 33. The Charchuts repeatedly called the Respondent and asked that he continue construction on the project and get it completed in a timely manner, but he ignored their requests. 34. The Respondent kept telling the Charchuts that he would work on their project soon, while taking little if any action to complete their residence. 35. the Respondent’s false assurances to the Charchuts were made with the intention of misleading and/or deceiving them. 36. In September of 1998, the Respondent notified the Charcuts that he was looking for another contractor to take over construction, and told Mr. Charchut that he would not be able to complete the project. 37. The Respondent’s actions in failing to continue work on the project in accordance with the construction agreement constituted abandonment of the project. 38. Mr. Charchut told the Respondent that he would find his own subsequent contractor, and the Respondent withdrew his name from the Building Department permit. 39. At the time the Respondent stopped work on the construction project, the following work had been completed: The lot had been cleared, the founding had been poured, and rough plumbing was installed. ; 40. The value of the work performed by the Respondent was approximately $21,536.00. ; 41. In addition to the $41,983.15 paid to the Respondent for the construction project, SunTrust Bank had also paid an additional $5,656.60 directly to Rinker and $1,894.00 to Mastercraft, for a total cash outlay of $49,533.75, expended by the Charchuts for the construction project. 42. The Respondent failed to refund any portion of the $41,983.15 received by him for the construction project, to the Charchuts. 43. In addition, the Respondent failed to pay an additional $2,514.94 owed to Rinker for materials and/or labor provided to the construction project at the Respondent’s direction. 44. Bs of May of 1999, the Respondent has failed to pay the $2,514.94 owed to Rinker, and Rinker is in the process of placing a lien on the Charchuts’ property as a result. 45. As of May of 999, the Charchuts have been unable to afford to hire a subsequent contractor to complete the construction project, due to the large amount of money already paid to the Respondent, for construction work not performed, which has not been refunded to the Charchuts. 46. At the time of the abandonment of the project, the percentage of project completion was less than the amount paid to the Respondent, and the Respondent has failed to refund any of the overage to the Charchuts. COUNT I 47. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through forty-six as though fully set forth in this Count I. 48, Section 455.227(1) (a) Florida Statutes provides that disciplinary action may be taken against a licensee iho makes misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of the licensee's profession. 49. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1) (c), Florida Statutes (1995), by violating any provision t: making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent ° rh ig) fs) iM 'o cr oO Lai Ps uw ur ct oO = BP a representations to the Charchuts regarding completion of the construction project. COUNT II 50. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through forty-six as though fully set forth in this Count II. 51. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1) (g), Florida Statutes (1995), by acting in the capacity of a contractor under any certificate or registration issued hereunder except in the name of the certificateholder or registrant as set forth on the issued certificate or registration, or in accordance with the personnel of the certificateholder or registrant as set forth in the application for the certificate or registration, or as later changed as provided in this part. COUNT III 52. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through forty-six as though fully set forth in this Count III. 53. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1) (h)2., Florida Statutes (1997), by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct occurs when the contractor has abandoned a customer's job and the percentage of completion is less than the percentage of the total contract price paid to the contractor as of the time of abandonment, unless the contractor is entitled to retain such funds under the terms of the contract or refunds the excess funds within 30 days after the date the job is abandoned. COUNT IV 54. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through forty-six as though fully set forth in this Count IV. 55. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Séction 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting. COUNT V 56. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through forty-six though fully set forth in this Count V. 57. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1) (n), Florida Statutes, by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. . COUNT VI 58. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through forty-six as though fully set forth in this Count VI. 59. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1) (0), Florida Statutes, by committing gross negligence, or repeated negligence. COUNT VII 60. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through forty-six as though fully set forth in this Count VII. 61. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes; by abandoning a construction 10 project in which the contractor was engaged or under contract as a “contractor. A project may be presumed abandoned after 90 days if the contractor terminates the project without just cause or without proper notification to the owner, including the reason for termination, or fails to perform work without just cause for 90 consecutive days. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter an Order imposing one or more of the following penalties: place on probation, reprimand the licensee, revoke, suspend, deny the issuance or renewal of the certificate or registration, require financial restitution to a consumer, impose an administrative fine not to exceed $55,000 per violation, require continuing education, assess ¢ sts associated with investigation and prosecution, impose any or all penalties delineated within Section 455.227(2), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the is authorized to impose pursuant to Chapters 489, 455, Florida Statutes and/or the rules promulgated thereunder. Signed this VU cay of Avy oy? , 1999. ? ZakkKt & D%Yond By: Cathleen E. O'Dowd Lead Attorney COUNSEL FOR DEPARTMENT: Laurie B. Woodham ; F | | E D . Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Dept. of Business and DEPUTY CLERK Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street {2 / MW: { le Tallahassee, Florida 32395-0792 CLERK . (850) 488-0062 @ 54 Case # 98-19681 pare __© “| . PO PL H)AYA - 12 Neagnoa + Pe yee

Docket for Case No: 00-000735