Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs. EUGENE AMRHEIN, 84-002527 (1984)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 84-002527 Visitors: 19
Judges: R. T. CARPENTER
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 1990
Summary: License was revoked for consistently failing to honor warranties, violating local building codes, hiring unlicensed persons and misconduct in contracting.
84-2527

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION )

INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NOS. 84-2527

) 85-0664

EUGENE AMRHEIN, ) 85-0665

)

Respondent. )

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


These cases came on for hearing in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on May 1, 1985 before the Division of Administrative Hearings and its duly appointed Hearing Officer, R. T. Carpenter. The parties were represented by:


APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire

Department of professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301


For Respondent: William F. Beggs, Esquire

BEGGS and VECCHIO

3012 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308


These cases arose on Petitioner's Administrative Complaints charging Respondent with various violations of Section 489.129, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 21E-15.07, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact which have been substantially adopted and incorporated herein.


Licensing records applicable to David Ness were offered into evidence by Petitioner subsequent to hearing, and were not opposed by Respondent. These documents are hereby received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 25.


FINDINGS OF FACT


  1. Respondent, Eugene Amrhein, is a certified roofing contractor, license number CC C020238, and was the qualifying agent for Knight Roofing, Inc. at all times relevant to these cases.

  2. On or about December 16, 1982, Respondent, conducting business through Knight Roofing Inc., contracted with Evelyn Nickerson for reroofing of a home at 707 N.E. 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida for a contract price of $1,485. She gave Respondent a downpayment of $785, and upon completion of the project paid the balance of $700.


  3. Respondent commenced work on the project without obtaining a permit, as required by Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code. Respondent also failed to obtain an inspection as required by Section 305.2(a), of this code.


  4. On or about March 10, 1981, Respondent conducting business through Knight Roofing, Inc., contracted with Judevilla Geria for the rebuilding of an existing flat tile roof for a contract price of $4,100.


  5. Respondent did not obtain the required building permit, in violation of Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code.


  6. Respondent did not perform the work contracted in that only a coat of paint was applied. He failed to rebuild the existing roof by recementing each tile, replacing rotten lumber, soffitt and fascia, nor did he replace approximately 50 tiles as

    required by the contract.


  7. However, Respondent has honored his warranty to Geria to the extent of repairing four leaks that developed

    subsequent to the work.


  8. On or about June 29, 1982 Respondent contracted with Golda Oxenberg to waterproof a roof at 3253 Foxcroft Road,

    Miramar, Florida. The contract price was $1,000. The project was completed and Respondent was paid in full.


  9. The Respondent violated Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code by failing to obtain a permit for this project.


  10. On or about August 22, 1983, Knight Roofing Inc., contracted with Joseph Castellano to repair the roof of a home at 1215 1st Street, Indian Rocks Beach, Florida. The contract price was $600, and included a two-year warranty.


  11. At no time was a licensed roofer present at the job site. David Ness, then an unlicensed individual, contracted for the work, performed the work, and received the payments. At no time did the Respondent supervise the work on the Castellano home.


  12. After completion, the roof began to leak. Respondent has not repaired the leak, despite his warranty.


  13. Respondent violated Section 108.2(d), Standard Building Code (adopted by Indian Rocks Beach Ordinance 291) by failing to obtain required inspections. However, no evidence was presented to show that Respondent violated Section 108.2(b), Standard Building Code, since a permit was obtained.


  14. Respondent has moved, but failed to notify the Construction Board of his new address as required by Rule 21E- 15.07, F.A.C.

  15. On March 7, 1984, Respondent contracted with Ralph Huff for roofing work at 3210 N.E. 9th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. The contract price was

    $5,725, and the work was completed.


  16. Respondent admitted at hearing that he failed to follow up on his warranty agreement.


  17. Respondent did not violate Section 305.2(a), South Florida Building Code since a final inspection was obtained on October 25, 1984.


    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


    CASE NO. 84-2527


  18. Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., as charged by violating a local building code when he failed to obtain a building permit prior to commencing repair on Evelyn Nickerson's home (required by Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code).


  19. Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., as charged by violating a local building code when he failed to obtain an inspection on Evelyn Nickerson's home (required by Section 305.2(a), South Florida Building Code).


  20. Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., as charged by violating a local building code when he failed to

    obtain a permit prior to commencing repairs on Judevilla Geria's home (required by Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code).


  21. Respondent did not violate Section 489.129(1)(c), F.S., as charged, since he honored his warranty by repairing four

    leaks at Judevilla Geria's home.


  22. Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(c), and 455.227(1)(a), F.S., as charged when he made misrepresentations as to the work to be performed on the Geria home.


  23. Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., as charged by violating a local building code when he failed to obtain a permit prior to commencing work on Golda Oxenberg's home (required by Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code).


    CASE NO. 85-0664


  24. Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(e), F.S., as charged by aiding or abetting an unlicensed individual to evade

    the provisions of the construction act.


  25. Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(f), F.S., as charged by combining or conspiring with an unlicensed individual by allowing his license to be used to evade the provisions of the construction act.


  26. Respondent did not violate Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., as charged since he did qualify Knight Roofing, Inc., as required by Sections 489.119(2) and (3), F.S.


  27. Respondent did not violate Section 489.129(1)(g), F.S., as charged since he did not contract in a name other than as set forth on his license.

  28. Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., as charged by failing to supervise construction as required under Sections 489.119(2) and 489.105(3), F.S.


  29. Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(c), F.S., as charged when he failed to honor the warranty for work at Joseph Castellano's home in violation of Section 455.227(1)(a), F.S.


  30. Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., as charged by violating a local building code in failing to obtain the required inspection on Joseph Castellano's home (required by Section 108.2(d), Standard Building Code).


  31. Respondent did not violate Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., as charged since he obtained a permit prior to commencing construction on the Castellano home.


  32. Respondent violated Section 489.129(2), F.S., as charged by failing to notify the Construction Board of his change in address (required by Rule 21E- 15.07, F.A.C.).


    CASE NO. 85-0665


  33. Respondent did not violate Section 489.129(1)(d), F.8. as charged since he did obtain a final inspection on the Huff home (required by Section 305.2(a), South Florida Building Code).


  34. Respondent did not violate Sections 489.129(1)(c), or 455.227(1)(a), F.S., as charged by failing to honor his warranty agreement on the Huff project, since there was no showing of fraud or intentional misrepresentation.


  35. Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., having demonstrated continuing misconduct in the practice of contracting.


RECOMMENDATION


Based on the foregoing, it is


RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's license.


DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida.


R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904)488-9675


FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1985.

COPIES FURNISHED:


Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301


William F. Beggs, Esquire BEGGS and VECCHIO

3012 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308


Fred Roche, Secretary

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301


Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301


James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2

Jacksonville Florida 32202


Docket for Case No: 84-002527
Issue Date Proceedings
Dec. 04, 1990 Final Order filed.
Jun. 25, 1985 Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 84-002527
Issue Date Document Summary
Sep. 10, 1985 Agency Final Order
Jun. 25, 1985 Recommended Order License was revoked for consistently failing to honor warranties, violating local building codes, hiring unlicensed persons and misconduct in contracting.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer