STATE OF FLORIDA bap DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION ,, "4 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD 4Qi/iyo, . DIVISION II WME HOF DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, Case No. 98-11203, 98-20085, 98-20630, 98-22638, & 99-05143 . C1 - 89 OL JOHN WESLEY CARTER, Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, files this Administrative Complaint before the Construction Industry Licensing Board, against, Respondent, JOHN WESLEY CARTER, 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 Roofing Contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CC C050492. 3. Respondent's last known address is 3225 Douglas Road, Panama City Beach, FL 32405-7112. 4. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifier for Carter Roofing. 5. Section 489.1195(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that all primary qualifying agents for a business organization are jointly and equally responsible for supervision of all operations of the business organization; for all field work at all sites; and for financial matters, both for the organization in general and for each specific job. 6. The Respondent failed to obtain a certificate of authority for Carter Roofing. COUNT I 7. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs One through Six as though fully set forth herein. 8. Section 489.119(2), Florida Statutes, requires that if an applicant proposes to engage in contracting as a business organization, including any partnership, corporation, business trust, or other legal entity, or in any name other than the applicant’s legal name or a fictitious name where the applicant is doing business as a sole proprietorship, the business organization must apply for a certificate of authority through a qualifying agent and under a fictitious name, if any. 9. Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Part I of Chapter 489. FACTS PERTAINING TO CASE NO. 98-11203 10. On or about October 26, 1995, the Respondent as Carter Roofing contracted with Mariner East Condos ("Mariner") to re-roof the condos located at 6211 Thomas Drive, Panama City, Florida 32408. The contract price was $ 52,400.00. 11. © Onor about November 9, 1995, the Respondent obtained Roofing Permit number 95-12433 from the Bay County Building Department. 12. Upon completion of the project, the Respondent failed to obtain a final inspection from the Bay County Building Department. COUNT II 13. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs One through Five and Paragraphs Ten through Twelve as though fully set forth herein. 14. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489. 129 (1)(p), Florida Statutes (1995), by proceeding on any job without obtaining the applicable local building permits and inspections, specifically by failing to obtain a final inspection of the project. FACTS PERTAINING TO CASE NO. 98-20085 15. On or about March 21, 1996, the Respondent as Carter Roofing and Breakers East Condominiums entered into a contract under which the Respondent was to remove the damaged roof of the condominiums located at 1010 East Highway 98, Destin, Florida 32541, and replace it with a new roof. The contract price was $ 82,680.00. 16. On or about April 22, 1996, the Respondent obtained City of Destin roofing permit number 96-01415. 17. Upon completion of the project, the Respondent failed to obtain a final inspection from the City of Destin Building Department. COUNT III 18. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs One through Five and Paragraphs Fifteen through Seventeen as though fully set forth herein. 19. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489. 129 (1)(p), Florida Statutes (1996), by proceeding on any job without obtaining the applicable local building permits and inspections, specifically by failing to obtain a final inspection of the project. FACTS PERTAINING TO CASE NO. 98-20630 20. On or about April 16, 1996, the Respondent as Carter Roofing and Ineda Lee entered into a contract whereby the Respondent was to remove the existing roof and replace it with a metal roof system, install a new eve trim, and clean up and remove all trash. The contract price was $3,100.00. 21. Onor about May 16, 1996, the Respondent was paid in full. 22. The project was not completed and leaks have caused damage to three rooms, which require painting and new ceiling tile. One room has a hole in the ceiling which requires _ Tepair. 23. The scope of the work performed at Lee's property required a permit. 24. The Respondent did not obtain a permit from the Bay County Building Department for this project. COUNT IV 25. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs One through Five and Paragraphs Twenty through Twenty-Two as though fully set forth herein. 26. 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 V 27. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs One through Five and Paragraphs Twenty through Twenty-Four as though fully set forth herein. 28. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(p), Florida Statutes (1995), by proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable local building department permits and inspections, specifically by failing to obtain a permit for the project. FACTS PERTAINING TO CASE NO. 98-22638 29. Onor about December 12, 1995, .the Respondent as Carter Roofing and Robert McDonald entered into a contract whereby the Respondent was to re-roof a section of McDonald's garage located at 403 Tarpon Street, Panama City Beach, Florida. The contract price was $ 2, 568.00. 30. On or about December 20, 1995, the Respondent obtained a permit from the Panama City Beach Building Department. 31. | Upon completion of the project, the Respondent failed to call for an inspection from the Panama City Beach Building Department. 32. On or about January 23, 1996, McDonald paid the Respondent in full. 33. On or about January 6, 1998, McDonald initiated a civil suit in the County Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Bay County against the Respondent, case number 98-43-SP. ~ 34. On or about May 20, 1998, the County Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Bay County, issued a Final Judgment in favor of McDonald and ordered the Respondent to pay McDonald $2,631.50 plus $248.89 in prejudgment interest. 35. To date, the County Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Bay County has no record that the Respondent has satisfied the aforementioned civil judgment. COUNT VI 36. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs One through Five and Paragraphs Twenty-Nine through Thirty-One as though fully set forth herein. 37. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129 (1)(p), Florida Statutes (1995), by proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable local building department permits and inspections, specifically by failing to obtain a final inspection of the project. COUNT VII 38. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs One through Five, and Paragraphs Thirty-Two through Thirty-Five as though fully set forth herein. 39. Rule 61G4-17.001(23), Florida Administrative Code, states in part that for the purposes of Section 489.129(1)(r), Florida Statutes, “reasonable time” means ninety (90) days following the entry of civil judgment that is not appealed. 40. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129 (1)(r), Florida Statutes (1997), by failing to satisfy within a reasonable time, the terms of a civil judgment obtained against the licensee, or the business organization qualified by the licensee, relating to the practice of the licensee's profession. FACTS PERTAINING TO CASE NO. 99-05143 41. On or about July 30, 1998, the Respondent as Carter Roofing entered into a contract with Aztec Villa Apartments ("Aztec") whereby the Respondent was to complete a roofing project on Buildings P and J of the apartment complex. The contract price was $ 36,000.00. 42. Onor about August 3, 1998, the Respondent obtained permit number 98-070883 for the Building J roofing project from the Bay County Building Department. 43. | Upon completion of the Building J roofing project, Bay County Building Department records show that no inspections were called for by the Respondent. 44, On or about December 11, 1998, the Respondent obtained permit number 98- 13667 for the Building P roofing project from the Bay County Building Department. 45. | Upon completion of the Building P roofing project, Bay County Building Department records show that no inspections were called for by the Respondent. 46. On or about September 22, 1998, the Respondent entered into a contract with Aztec whereby the Respondent was to do a roofing project on Building G of the aforementioned apartment complex. The contract price was $ 18, 400.00. 47. On or about December 11, 1998, the Respondent obtained permit number 98- 13668 for the Building G roofing project from the Bay County Building Department. 48. Upon completion of the Building G roofing project, Bay County Building Department records show that no inspections were called for by the Respondent. 49. Carter Roofing received three checks for the two projects totalling $ 52,920.00. 50. On or about November 19, 1998, a claim of lien was filed by Gulfside Supply, Inc. against Aztec for non-payment by the Respondent in the amount of $ 12,758.90. 51. To date, the Respondent has not satisfied the aforementioned lien. COUNT VIII 52. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs One through Five and Paragraphs Forty-One through Forty-Three as though fully set forth herein. 53. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129 (1)(p), Florida Statutes (1997), by proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable local building department permits and inspections, specifically by failing to obtain a final inspection of the project. COUNT IX 54. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs One through Five, and Paragraphs Forty-Four through Forty-Five as though fully set forth herein. 55. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129 (1)(p), Florida Statutes (1997), by proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable local building department permits and inspections, specifically by failing to obtain a final inspection of the project. COUNT X 56. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs One through Five and Paragraphs Forty-Six through Forty-Eight as though fully set forth herein. 57. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129 (We), Florida Statutes, by proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable local building department permits and inspections, specifically by failing to obtain a final inspection of the project. COUNT XI 58. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs One through Five and Paragraphs Forty-Nine through Fifty-One as though fully set forth herein. 59. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129 (1)(g)(1), Florida Statutes (1998), by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer: Valid liens have been recorded against the property of a contractor's customer for supplies or services ordered by the contractor for the customer's job; the contractor has received funds from the customer to pay for the supplies | or services; and the contractor has not had the liens removed from the property, by payment or | by bond, within 75 days after the date of such liens. | WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests 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 $5,000 per violation, require continuing education, assess costs associated with investigation and prosecution, impose any or all penalties delineated within Section 455.227(2), Florida Statutes, and/or any ; other relief that the Board is authorized to impose pursuant to Chapters 489, 455, Florida Statutes, and/or the rules promulgated thereunder. FIL ED Signed this // _dayof__—sA pn? , 2000. Department of Business and Professional Ragulation ; ; | ° DEPUTY CLERK Lok & Dowd ccm Prardnt Michele Lead Construction Attorney DATE U-1$- 2000 (Pee) Marth 82, 2000 | Division TT Suéan Stores| Heth Lawson, € Oe | By: Cathleen E. O’Dowd | i * COUNSEL FOR DEPARTMENT: Matthew S. Casey Senior Attorney FL Bar Number: 0115320 Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Case # 98-11203, 98-20085, 98-20630, 98-22638, & 99-05143 MSC/jkm

Docket for Case No: 01-001089PL