Judges: JAMES E. BRADWELL
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Latest Update: Mar. 16, 1989
Summary: The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent failed to either obtain a permit, call for inspections or honor a guarantee he made in the performance of his contracting activities as is more specifically set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.Respondent engaged in misconduct in the practice of roofing.
88-5195STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )
REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION )
INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 88-5195
)
RICHARD DOMINGO, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a public hearing in this case on January 12, 1989, in Clearwater, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: David Bryant, Esquire
500 North Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33602
For Respondent: Richard Domingo, pro se
4032 41st Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent failed to either obtain a permit, call for inspections or honor a guarantee he made in the performance of his contracting activities as is more specifically set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT
During times material, Respondent was a certified roofing contractor, having been issued license number CC C014700 and was the sole qualifier for Gulfstream Contractors, Incorporated (Gulfstream).
Gulfstream entered into a contract with Dr. Paul J. Schwartz, a chiropractor, to repair the roof to Schwartz' office building located at 1565 South Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, Florida.
The contract between Gulfstream and Schwartz was entered into on July 22, 1985, and for a fee of $1,375.00, Gulfstream contracted to repair Schwartz' roof by tearing off the old gravel roof, install new decking and lead boots, to galvanize the roof and to remove all debris brought about as a result of the
contracting activities. Gulfstream guaranteed the roof to be free of defects for a period of ten (10) years. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.)
Gulfstream commenced the repairs to Schwartz' roof without obtaining a construction permit and failed to call for progress inspections as was required by the City of Clearwater.
Within one month following Respondent's completion of Schwartz' roof, Schwartz encountered leaks to the interior of his office building resulting in stained carpet, interior walls, and furniture in several of his examining rooms.
Schwartz made repeated calls to Gulfstream in an effort to get Gulfstream to honor its ten-year guarantee on the roof. Respondent initially attempted to correct (repair) the roof, although he failed to return to the project after two or three visits during the first two months following completion of the project during July 1985.
Thomas Chiplinsky is an inspector for the City of Clearwater whose area of responsibility includes the inspection of roofing projects. As part of his duties, Inspector Chiplinsky inspected Schwartz' roof following a complaint received by the City of Clearwater and found that the roof was installed in July 1985 by Gulfstream and no permit was obtained or inspections called for or made by Respondent. Inspector Chiplinsky observed soft spots in the roof and noted that Respondent failed to install counter flashing.
Respondent acknowledges his responsibility as qualifier for Gulfstream. Respondent admits that he neither obtained a permit to perform the roof repairs, nor did he call for inspections as required by the City of Clearwater.
Within months after Respondent completed the Schwartz project, the entity, Gulfstream Contractors, was disbanded and therefore no one responded to Schwartz' request that his roof be repaired.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this action. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
The authority of the Petitioner is derived from Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.
Respondent is a qualifying agent within the meaning of Subsections 489.105(4) and 489.119, Florida Statutes.
Section 489.129(1), authorizes the Petitioner to revoke, suspend or impose an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000, or place a contractor on probation, or reprimand or censure a contractor if the contractor or if the business entity for which the qualifying agent is found guilty of any of the following acts:
Willful or deliberate disregard and violation of the
applicable building codes or laws
of the state or of any municipalities or counties thereof.
(j) Failure in any material way to comply with the provisions of this act.
(m) Upon proof that the licensee is guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
Competent and substantial evidence was offered herein which establishes that Respondent failed to obtain the required building permit or call for inspections as required by the City of Clearwater in his repair of the subject roofing project. Additionally, Respondent failed to reasonably honor the ten-year guarantee that he gave to his customer, Paul Schwartz. Based thereon, it is concluded that Respondent thereby engaged in conduct within the purview of Subsections 489.129(1)(d), (j) and (m), Florida Statutes.
Insufficient evidence was offered herein to establish that Respondent was the subject of prior disciplinary action by Petitioner.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that:
Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing a $500 fine against Respondent, payable to Petitioner within 30 days of the entry of its Final Order.
Respondent's license number CC C014700 be suspended for a period of one
(1) year within the further condition that Respondent be allowed a period of 20 days following the entry of the Final Order to revisit the Schwartz project and make the necessary repairs to correct the roof repairs and abide by the terms of his guarantee. In the event that Respondent makes the necessary repairs within
30 days of entry of the Final Order, it is further RECOMMENDED that the period of suspension be suspended.
RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
JAMES E. BRADWELL
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1989.
COPIES FURNISHED:
David Bryant
500 North Tampa Tampa, Florida 33602
Richard Domingo
4032 41st Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing
Board
111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 3220
Docket for Case No: 88-005195
Orders for Case No: 88-005195
