STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, | ) ) ) | |
) | ||
Petitioner, | ) CASE NOS. | 85-0340 |
) | 85-0636 | |
vs. | ) | |
) | ||
GEORGE E. LONGINO, | ) | |
) | ||
Respondent. | ) |
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, W. Matthew Stevenson, held a formal hearing in this case on September 20, 1985 in Jacksonville, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: W. Douglas Beason, Esq.
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: M. Carolyn Givens
(Non-attorney representative) 8741 Free Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The issues for determination at the final hearing were whether Respondent violated the construction industry licensing law, by:
Exceeding the scope of his certification and/or registration;
Failing to adequately supervise the contracting activity of the business entity which he qualified;
Willfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state or of any municipalities or counties thereof; and/or;
Being guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Petitioner's motion to consolidate Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 85-0340 with the Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 85-0636 was granted.
Thereafter the Petitioner filed an Amended Administrative Complaint which encompassed the allegations contained in the original Administrative Complaints in both cases. The Respondent disputed the factual allegations contained in the Board's complaint and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. This cause came on for final hearing on September 20, 1985.
Prior to the commencement of the final hearing, the Respondent filed written notice that he desired to be represented in this case by a non-attorney representative, M. Carolyn Givens. Ms. Givens filed an affidavit outlining her qualifications and requesting that she be allowed to act as non- attorney representative for Respondent in this cause. After due consideration of Ms. Given's sworn affidavit setting forth her qualifications and upon a diligent inquiry of Ms. Givens under oath and on the record, Ms. Givens was authorized to appear in the administrative proceeding. See Rule 221-6.08, Florida Administrative Code. It was specifically determined that the prospective non-attorney representative had the necessary qualifications to render competent and responsible representation of the Respondent's interest in a manner which would not impair the fairness of the proceeding or the correctness of the action to be taken.
* At the final hearing the Petitioner called the following witnesses: the Respondent, Debra J. O'Reilly custodian of records for the City of Jacksonville Building Department; Patricia A. Powers; Carl W. Powers; Theron Brannan, accepted as an expert witness in residential construction; Glenn M. Blanchard; Mrs. Blanchard; and Louis B. Franks, accepted as an expert witness in residential construction. In addition to the preceding witnesses, the Petitioner offered Exhibits 1 through
10 into evidence, all of which were accepted and duly admitted
into the record. The Respondent presented the testimony of Richard Davenport, Peter Stamires and Robert A. Murray. In addition, the Respondent offered Exhibits A and B into evidence, all of which were duly accepted and admitted into the record.
On rebuttal, the Petitioner re-called Mr. Glenn Blanchard.
The parties have submitted posthearing proposed Findings of Fact. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact:
Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified building contractor, a registered mechanical contractor and a certified air conditioning contractor in the state of Florida having been issued license numbers CB-CA09793, RM-0031246 and CA-C024348, respectively.
At all times material hereto, Respondent's building contractor and air conditioning contractor licenses qualified George E. Bonsino and Associates, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida.
In February 1984, Respondent contracted with Carl and Patricia Powers of 4530 Victor Street, Jacksonville, Florida for the construction of a room addition. The contract was presented to the Powers by Peter Stamires. Mr. Stamires was, at the time, acting as sales manager for George E. Longino and Associates, Inc. The contract price was approximately $13,000.00 and construction of the Powers' room addition was estimated to be completed by March 30, 1984. On March 20, 1984 Respondent received from Carl and Patricia Powers a payment of $6,850.00 on the contract. On May 4, 1984 Respondent received from Carl and Patricia Powers an additional payment of $5,000.00 on the contract. The contract called for a "dry-in room" only, i.e., the room was to be put to a stage where water would not penetrate it. The contract also included: (1) covering the existing asbestos shingles with a cut brick and stone veneer;
(2) the installation of aluminum windows; (3) the installation of aluminum gables and eaves; (4) re-roofing the entire home; and (5) the installation of overhead lights, light switches and electrical outlets.
Respondent's contract with the Powers contemplated that electrical work would be done, but did not include any plumbing.
Respondent sub-contracted the Powers' project to two
(2) individuals, Mr. Walker and Mr. Todd. Respondent did not know what type of license Mr. Walker or Mr. Todd held and was never shown a license by either individual. Mr. Walker agreed to obtain permits for the Powers' project, to submit building plans and specifications, and to request the mandatory building inspections. Neither the Respondent nor the sub-contractors obtained a City of Jacksonville building permit prior to commencing construction of the Powers' room addition.
Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractors submitted building plans and specifications for approval by the, City of Jacksonville Building Department prior to commencing construction at the Powers' residence as required.
Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractors requested the City of Jacksonville Building Department to perform any type of building inspections during the process of construction, as required.
On June 11, 1984 Respondent obtained building permit no. 7048 from the City of Jacksonville Building and Zoning Inspection Division for the Powers' project.
Shortly after construction commenced, the Powers became concerned with the quality of work being performed. Respondent, while at the project site near the end of March, told Mr. Powers that a building permit had been obtained for the project. However, at that time, no building permit had been obtained.
Mr. Theron Brannan, a building inspector for the City of Jacksonville, became involved with the Powers' case when Mrs. Powers called in May 1984 and complained about ;he work being performed by Respondent. Mr. Brannan checked and found that no permit had been issued. He then went out and inspected the construction site. Mr. Brannan found that the walls were approximately 3 or 4 inches out of alignment and that the floor was spongy and needed repair. Major work would have been required to straighten the walls. In Mr. Brannan's opinion, the work was well below average and was of very poor quality.
Electrical and plumbing work was performed at the Powers' project site. Ten (10) electrical outlets, six (6) overhead lights and six (6) light switches were installed. The
electrical work also included a 220 volt outlet for a clothes dryer. Mrs. Powers is a housewife and was present during the time the electrical work was performed. The individual performing the electrical work told Ms. Powers that he worked for Respondent and was being paid on an hourly basis.
The plumbing work performed at the Powers' project included: (1) installation of hot and cold water lines for the bathroom sink, which were tied into the existing water supply;
(2) a water line to the toilet, and (3) a drain pipe from the toilet to the existing septic tank. The individual performing the plumbing work told Ms. Powers that he worked for Respondent on an hourly basis and that he was a licensed plumber.
When Respondent was advised of the problems at the construction site, he immediately obtained the necessary permits and offered to correct some of the building problems. The Powers refused Respondent's offer to correct the problems because they were concerned as to whether the remedial measures proposed by Respondent were actually feasible. From an appearance standpoint, the measures contemplated by Respondent were not feasible.
In April 1984, Respondent contracted with Glenn and Debora Blanchard of 521 Astral Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida for the construction of a room addition. The total contract price was $6,780.00. Respondent received $3,390.00 as a down payment on the contract; the balance was due upon completion. The contract called for the construction of a room addition between the existing home and the garage. The room addition was to be completed to the "dry-in" stage only. The contract also included re-roofing the entire residence. The Respondent sub- contracted the Blanchard project to a person by the name of A.
Rhoden. Mr. Rhoden agreed to obtain all permits, draw all plans and specifications and obtain all required inspections with the exception of the roofing aspects of the project.
Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractor obtained a building permit prior to commencing construction at the Blanchard's residence as required.
Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractor submitted building plans and specifications to the City of Jacksonville Building Department prior to commencing construction.
Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractor requested the building department perform any type of building inspections during the process of construction
In May 1984, Ms. Blanchard became concerned because the concrete slab appeared uneven and had developed a crack. She contacted the City of Jacksonville Building Department because she was concerned with the quality of the work being performed.
On May 30, 1984 the City of Jacksonville Building Department and Zoning Inspection Division issued a stop work order on construction work being performed at the Blanchard residence. The Notice of Violation cited the failure to submit building plans and failure to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction at the project site.
On June 11, 1984 Respondent obtained building permit no. 7047 from the City of Jacksonville Building and Zoning Inspection Division for the construction work at the Blanchard residence. Such Permit was obtained after commencement of the project.
Shortly after commencement of construction, Respondent met with Mr. Blanchard at the project site to discuss a few changes to the original plans. In late April, 1984, Respondent told Mr. Blanchard that a building permit had been obtained, when in fact, no building permit had been obtained. Respondent told Mr. Blanchard that the permit needed to be kept at his office.
The construction of the room addition included the forming and pouring of a monolithic slab. The City building department inspects the excavation of the slab prior to the pouring of concrete. A tie-beam inspection is required after the foundation is poured and the masonry walls are erected. Neither inspection was performed nor requested.
The Respondent told Mrs. Blanchard that two (2) inspectors had inspected the property, when in fact no inspectors had inspected the property because no building permit had been applied for at the time Respondent made such statement. Unless a building permit is obtained, the City is generally not aware that a construction project is being undertaken and, therefore, does not conduct building inspections.
Lewis D. Franks, an expert in residential construction inspected the work done at the Blanchard's home on behalf of the City of Jacksonville Building Department. Several problems existed in regard to the Blanchard project. There was a large crack in the concrete which resulted from the settling of the southeast corner of the building. The settling of the southeast corner resulted from either an inadequate footing or none at all. Also, the roof rafters were not centered properly and were about fourteen (14) feet off. The Blanchard project was of very poor workmanship, the construction was not structurally sound, and the project failed in several respects to meet requirements of the City of Jacksonville Building Code.
When Respondent found out that no permit had been obtained he promptly drew up plans and specifications and obtained a permit from the City of Jacksonville Building Department. The Blanchards, thereafter, refused to allow Respondent to continue working on the project.
The roofing portion of the Blanchard project was sub- contracted by Respondent to Richard Davenport. Mr. Davenport holds a state license as a roofing contractor and a local occupational license. Mr. Davenport's sub-contract called for him to tear off the existing roof, carry off the rotten wood and put on a new roof. Respondent was not satisfied with the roofing job done by Mr. Davenport and failed to pay him for such roofing job. Thereafter, Mr. Davenport demanded payment from the Blanchards but they also refused to pay him. Mr. Davenport filed a Claim of Lien against the Blanchards' property.
However, the Blanchards hired an attorney and the Claim of Lien was dismissed. Respondent's failure to pay Mr. Davenport was based on his good faith belief that the roofing job was not done in a satisfactory manner.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1983).
This proceeding is penal in nature and the burden of proof is on the Petitioner. Bach vs. Florida Board of Dentistry
378 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Because the Respondent's license is at stake, the evidence to support the charges must be more substantial than that required to support conventional forms of regulatory
action. Under these circumstances, Bowling vs. Department of Insurance, 394 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) requires the evidence weigh as substantially on a scale suitable for evidence as the penalty does on the scale of penalties. Accordingly, the findings here made are predicated upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence.
Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes (1983), authorizes the Construction Industry Licensing Board to "revoke, suspend, or deny the issuance or renewal of the certificate or registration of a contractor and impose an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000.00, place a contractor on probation, or reprimand or censure a contractor if the contractor, or if the business entity or any general partner, officer, director, trustee, or member of a business entity for which the contractor is a qualifying agent, is found guilty of" any of the acts specified in Section 489.129(1)(a)-(m), Florida Statutes (1983).
Count One of the Amended Administrative Complaint concerned allegations that arose during the Powers' construction project. The Respondent is charged with violating Section 489.115(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1983), by exceeding the scope of his certification and/or registration) violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1983), in that Respondent allegedly violated Section 489.105(4), Florida Statutes (1983), by failing to adequately supervise the construction activities of the business entity which he qualified; violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes 11983), by willfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building code or laws of the State or any municipalities or counties thereof; and violating Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1983) in that Respondent is allegedly guilty of fraud or deceit or gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
Section 489.115(1)(b) provides that "certification allows the certificate holder to engage in contracting only for the type of work covered by the certificate." Petitioner alleges that the Respondent exceeded the scope of his certification or registration by failing to properly sub-contract electrical and plumbing work required by his contract with the Powers for construction of the room addition. The Respondent was not licensed to perform electrical or plumbing contracting work. While the evidence did establish that the contract called for electrical work and while there was some evidence that plumbing and electrical work had been performed at the construction site, the evidence failed to establish that Respondent or his
employees performed the electrical and plumbing work or whether some other licensed sub-contractor performed the work in question. The testimony of Mrs. Powers to the effect that one of the workers performing the electrical work told her that he was an hourly employee of Respondent was uncorroborated hearsay and does not fit within any of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule. Furthermore, Mrs. Powers testified that the worker performing the plumbing work told her that he did have a license. Section 489.112(3), Florida Statutes (1983), provides in part that: "A contractor shall contract the electrical . . . (and) plumbing . . . work" required for completion of the job. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent did not properly sub-contract the electrical and plumbing portions of the project.
Section 489.105(4), Florida Statutes (1983) provides that the qualifying agent has the responsibility to supervise, direct, manage and control the contracting activities of the business entity with which he is connected. The Petitioner alleges that the Respondent failed to supervise the construction activities of his company, George Longino and Associates, Inc., and in so doing, violated Section 489.129(j), Florida Statutes (1983), which provides a penalty for a contractors "failure in any material respect to comply with the provisions" of Chapter 489.
The evidence was sufficient to establish that Respondent failed to supervise the contracting activities of his companies' project at the Power's residence. Respondent's contact with the project was so minimal that he remained unaware of the many problems which existed at the site until Mrs. Powers telephoned him to complain. In addition, Respondent remained unaware that no building permit had been obtained for the project, although he knew that the permit was required to be posted at the construction site.
Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1983) seeks to punish a contractor's "willful or deliberate disregard and violation of the applicable building codes or laws of the state or of any municipalities or counties thereof." The Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction, failed to submit building plans and specifications for approval by the building department prior to commencing construction, failed to request the building department conduct mandatory inspections during the process of construction, failed to properly sub-contract the electrical and plumbing portions of the construction project and failed to
obtain required electrical and plumbing permits, all in violation of the City of Jacksonville Building Code.
It was uncontroverted that no building permits were obtained for the Powers' project prior to commencing construction, no building plans and specifications were submitted to the department and no mandatory inspections were requested during the process of construction. It is also uncontroverted that the above requirements are established in the City of Jacksonville Building Code. However, Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1983), requires that the disregard or violation of the local building code be "willful" or "deliberate". While Respondent stated that he was familiar with the City of Jacksonville Building Code, his overall testimony and the standard operating procedure of his business, indicated that he was not as familiar with the code as he could or should have been. The Respondent testified that when he sub- contracted the Powers' project to Mr. Todd and Mr. Walker, it then became their responsibility to "pull the permit", submit building plans and specifications and arrange for department inspections. Indeed, Respondent's Exhibits "A" and "B", the standard sub-contractors agreement used by Respondent's business, provided that the sub-contractor "will apply and obtain all permits which the contractor above has agreed to obtain." Section 900-103.2(c)(1), Jacksonville Building Code provides that "[w]here a . . . qualifying agent . . . is specifically required by law to supervise or perform the work to be included under such permit, the application shall be signed by such person." Thus, the Respondent, and not the sub- contractor, had the responsibility of obtaining the necessary permits and the Respondent was in violation of the local code for not doing so. However, because it was clear that the Respondent did not know that he was required to obtain the necessary permits, submit plans and specifications and request mandatory inspections, it cannot be said that he willfully or deliberately violated the City of Jacksonville Building Code.
As for Petitioner's contention that the Respondent failed to properly sub-contract the electrical and plumbing portions of the contract as required by the local building code, the evidence was insufficient to establish a willful, deliberate disregard or violation of the local building code. (See discussion concerning Respondent's alleged violation of Section 489.115(1)(b),
Florida Statutes (1983), infra).
The Petitioner further contends under Count One that the Respondent is guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross
negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The Petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is guilty of incompetence in the practice of contracting. The poor quality of workmanship evidenced at the Powers project in combination with the numerous problems that existed at the project site, established incompetence in the practice of contracting. Incompetence has been defined as "inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose" and "unable to function properly, lacking the qualities needed for effective action". Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.
Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint, concerns allegations arising out of Respondent's contract on the Blanchards' project. The Respondent is charged with violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1983) in that Respondent willfully or deliberately violated the applicable local building laws; and, violating Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1983) in that Respondent is allegedly guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
In regard to Petitioner's allegations that Respondent violated local building laws, the evidence was not sufficient to show a willful or deliberate violation. As in the Powers' project, discussed previously, the Respondent was unaware that he was in violation of the City of Jacksonville Building Code and therefore, cannot be found to have willfully and deliberately disregarded or violated such local laws.
The evidence was sufficient to establish that Respondent failed to supervise the construction activities at the Blanchard residence. As with the Power's project, Respondent's contact with the Blanchard project were so minimal that he was unaware of the many major and obvious construction problems which existed. When Respondent finally became involved with the project, major changes were required to correct the deficiencies.
The Petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent is guilty of incompetence in the practice of contracting in regard to the Blanchard project. Louis Franks testified for Petitioner and was accepted by Respondent, without objection, as an expert in the field of residential construction. Mr. Franks visited the Blanchard project and inspected it. In Mr. Franks' opinion, the work performed at the Blanchard project was of such poor quality and
workmanship that it was structurally unsound. The rafters were not centered properly and the foundation had settled. The numerous problems which existed at the construction site combined with the structural unsoundness of the project establishes a clear case of incompetence in the practice of contracting. As the court stated in Alles v. Department of Professional Regulation, 423 So. 2d 624, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), "Just as a [qualifying agent] may not lend his name to a company in order that the company may act as a contractor and then avoid his responsibility by stating that he had nothing to do with the project, neither may he or the company be permitted to relieve the [qualifying agent] of his responsibility by attempting to transfer it to one or more unnamed individuals who are not registered with the Board as qualifying agents of that company."
Petitioner requests, in his Proposed Conclusions of Law, that Respondent be found guilty of deceit because of false representations that a building permit had been obtained and inspections performed is rejected. The Administrative Complaint did not encompass those factual allegations. While Administrative Complaints need not be drawn with the technical precision of criminal charges, notice and a fair opportunity to be prepared and respond to particular and specific factual allegations are a fundamental requirement of due process.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent be found guilty of failing to supervise the construction activities of the company which he qualified and incompetence in the practice of contracting as alleged in Count One of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that all other alleged violations contained in Count One of the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed.
That Respondent be found guilty of failing to supervise the construction activities of the company which he qualified and incompetence in the practice of contracting as alleged in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that all other alleged violations contained in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed.
That Count Three of the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed, the Petitioner failing to introduce any evidence in regard to Count Three and requesting that it be dismissed.
It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's building contractor's license be suspended for a period of 6 months and that an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 be assessed.
DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 30th day of October, 1985.
* Count Three of the Administrative Complaint was voluntarily dismissed by Petitioner and, in any event, was not established by the evidence.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Douglas Beason, Esq. Department of Professional
Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
M. Carolyn Givens 8741 Free Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida 32211
Fred Roche Secretary
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
James Linnan Executive Director
Department of Professional Regulation
O. Box 2
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
APPENDIX
Pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1983), the following is submitted in response to Petitioner's and Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact:
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact:
Paragraph Ruling
(general finding) Accepted; see paragraph 1, R.O.
Accepted; see paragraph 2, R.O.
(DPR Case #0049083) Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O.
Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O.
Accepted; see paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, R.O.
Partially accepted; see paragraphs 4 & 11
Petitioner's proposed finding "the individual performing the electrical work was Respondent's employee and was being paid on an hourly basis" is rejected on the basis that the evidence presented on that issue consisted of uncorroborated hearsay which did not
fit
within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.
Partially accepted; see paragraphs 4, 7,
11 and 12, R.O. Petitioner's finding
that "the plumbing work was performed by Respondent's employee" is rejected on the basis that the evidence presented on that issue consisted of uncorroborated hearsay.
Accepted; see paragraphs 9 and 10, R.O.
Accepted; see paragraph 10, R.O.
Accepted; see paragraph 13, R.O.
Accepted; see paragraph 13, R.O.
(DPR Case #0049788) Accepted; see paragraph 14, R.O.
Accepted; see paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 23, R.O.
Accepted; see paragraphs 17 and 22, R.O.
Partially accepted; see paragraph 17,
R.O. Facts not covered by
paragraph 17are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial.
Accepted; see paragraphs 18 and 19, R.O.
Partially accepted; see paragraphs 21
and 23, R.O. Facts not covered therein are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial.
Accepted; see paragraph 24, R.O.
Accepted; see paragraph 24, R.O. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact
Finding: Ruling:
Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O.
Accepted; see paragraphs 4 and 5, R.O.
Accepted; see paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 13.
Partially accepted; see paragraph 13. Findings not covered therein are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial.
Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial.
Accepted; see paragraph 13, R.O.
Rejected as a conclusion of law.
Accepted; see paragraph 14, R.O. Respondents claim that the contract called for the construction of a dry-in addition and not a "room addition" is considered immaterial.
Accepted; see paragraph 14, R.O.
Accepted; see paragraph 26, R.O.
Accepted; see paragraph 25, R.O.
Accepted; see paragraph 25, R.O.
Rejected as irrelevant.
Accepted; see paragraph 25, R.O.
Rejected as a conclusion of law.
================================================================
=
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
================================================================
=
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 0049083, 0049788,
vs. 0052020
DOAH CASE NO. 85-0340, 85-0636
GEORGE E. LONGINO,
License No. CA C024348, CB CA 09793, RM 0031246,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
THIS MATTER came before the Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Section 120.57(i)(b)9., Florida Statutes, on January 9, 1986, in Jacksonville, Florida for consideration of the Recommended Order (a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference) issued by the hearing officer in the case of Department of Professional Regulation vs. George
Lonsino, Case No. 85-0340, 85-0636. The petitioner was
represented by Douglas A. Shropshire. The Respondent was not present.
Upon consideration of the hearing officer's Recommended Order, exceptions filed and the arguments of the parties and after a review of the complete record in this matter, the Board makes the following findings:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The hearing officer's findings of fact are hereby approved and adopted.
There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Hearing officer's findings of fact.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant the provisions or Section 120..7(1), and Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.
The hearing officer's conclusions of law, are hereby approved and adopted in toto.
The penalty recommended by the Heating Officer is hereby rejected and Petitioner's Motion to increase penalty is hereby granted.
There is competent substantial evidence to support the Board's findings and conclusions.
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
All of Respondent's licensure to practice contracting shall be suspended for five years to run from the date this Board takes final action in this case; PROVIDED, Respondent may apply to the Board for reinstatement after one year and upon a showing satisfactory to the Board, that Respondent has made reasonable efforts to assist the injured party, Carl Powers and Glen Blanchard of Jacksonville, and that Respondent's financial affairs are in good and sound condition, and that probable cause has not subsequently been found against Respondent in any case for any violation of Chapter 489, said reinstatement will be granted. For the purposes of such an application for . reinstatement, Respondent shall be required to stand before the Board for such questions as the Board feels appropriate, and shall supply the Board with such documents as the Board feels necessary.
Pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this final order by filing one (1) copy of notice of appeal with the clerk of the agency and by filing the filing fee and one (1) copy of a notice of appeal with the District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the filing of this order.
This Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation.
DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of February, 1986.
John Fix, Chairman
Construction Industry Licensing Board
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been provided by certified mail to
George Longino | Carolyn Givens, | ||
12942 Helm Dr. | 8741 Free Ave. | ||
Jacksonville, Fla. | 32217 | Jacksonville, Fla. | 32217 |
and by hand delivery/United States mail to the Board Clerk, Department of Professiona1 Regulation and its Counsel, 130 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, on or before 5:00 p.m., this 19th day of February, 1986.
JAMES B. POWELL
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 08, 1990 | Final Order filed. |
| Jun. 17, 1985 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 06, 1986 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 17, 1985 | Recommended Order | Board abused discretion by rejecting recommendation to grant endorsement of doctor recovering from alcoholism. Appellate costs and fees awarded. |
