Petitioner: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD
Respondent: MICHAEL A. CHRISTY
Judges: J. D. PARRISH
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Locations: Miami, Florida
Filed: Jun. 02, 1995
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, May 15, 1996.
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 1996
Summary: The central issue in these cases is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaints; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Licensee harmed consumers by failing to timely complete work.
95-2857STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING ) BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
) CASE NOS. 95-2857
vs. ) 95-2858
) 95-2859
MICHAEL A. CHRISTY, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated Hearing Officer, Joyous D. Parrish, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on October 24, 1995, in Miami, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Gary Asbell
Senior Attorney
Department of Business and Professional Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
For Respondent: Charles G. White, Esquire
2250 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 150
Miami, Florida 33129
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The central issue in these cases is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaints; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
DOAH case no. 95-2857 began on September 6, 1994, when the Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), issued an administrative complaint against the Respondent, Michael A. Christy. Such complaint alleged twenty-two counts against the Respondent involving acts and omissions related to five different consumers. At hearing, Petitioner presented evidence as to only one of the consumers, Mark Bouvy.
In substance, this complaint alleged that Respondent had contracted with Mr. Bouvy for repairs to his home but had failed to complete the work or return
monies deposited on the construction contract. Respondent executed an election of rights disputing the facts and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. This case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on June 2, 1995.
In DOAH case no. 95-2858, the Department filed a twenty-three count complaint that similarly alleged violations related to construction contracts. In connection with this case the Department presented the testimony of May Rena Rodin, a real estate agent who served as the property manager for Frank Castrillo. The complaint alleged that Respondent had failed to perform work as contracted on the Castrillo home, received monies based upon the work that was to be completed, and never refunded same to the homeowner.
As in the prior case, Respondent disputed the material issues of fact and requested a formal hearing. This case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on June 2, 1995.
The third administrative complaint, DOAH case no. 95-2859, contained five counts against the Respondent and related to property owned by Ms. Rodin, individually. At hearing she testified as to the contract for repairs to her home for which she made payment and for which work was not completed nor refund made. Respondent disputed the issues of this case and this matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on June 2, 1995.
A transcript of the proceeding was filed. At the conclusion of the case the Respondent was granted leave to late-file the deposition of Robert Gregg, an architect whose office is in Clearwater, Florida. After requesting an extension of the time to file same, which was granted, the parties stipulated to the submission of Mr. Gregg's affidavit in lieu of the deposition. Such document was filed on March 20, 1996.
Both parties have submitted proposed recommended orders. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact are included in the appendix at the conclusion of this order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner is the state agency charged with the authority to regulate construction industry licensees.
At all times material to the allegations of this matter, Respondent, Michael A. Christy, was licensed as a certified general contractor, license no. CG C013824, and was the qualifying agent for a company called Constructors Company International Inc., a Florida corporation doing business as ICC.
All acts complained of related to ICC doing business in Dade County, Florida during the time following Hurricane Andrew. At all times material to this matter, Respondent's primary place of doing business was not Dade County, Florida.
In August, 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck Dade County resulting in extensive damage to hundreds of homes.
Due to the tremendous volume of work available, contractors from other areas of the state, such as Respondent, set up offices to do business in Miami.
With Respondent's knowledge and consent, ICC began soliciting business in Dade County.
Two officers of the corporation, Robert Hoskinson and Keith Grubb, solicited business directly with the public in Dade County. Respondent did not supervise their day-to-day activities and allowed them to place contract deposits into an ICC bank account over which Respondent did not have signatory authority or control.
In fact, according to Respondent, Hoskinson and Grubb controlled all monies received by ICC for the Dade County activities.
Respondent attempted to match contracts and deposits based upon building permits (which he was required to pull through the Dade County Building Department). This system was wrought with error, and failed to account for monies applicable to contracts for which permits were not pulled.
In May or June of 1993, after soliciting at least sixty contracts for construction repair for Dade homeowners, Messrs. Hoskinson and Grubb departed Dade County for parts unknown. Not surprisingly, Respondent discovered ICC bank records and funds were also missing.
In March, 1993, Mark Bouvy contracted with ICC to perform hurricane damage repairs to his home. The contract price for the work to be performed was
$31,227.33.
In connection with the contract, Mr. Bouvy put down deposits payable to ICC in the amount of $9,368.20. This amount was placed into a NationsBank account, account no. 3601642581. This account is the ICC bank account described above.
Respondent did not know about the Bouvy contract nor the deposits at the time of the contract execution. Although Mr. Bouvy believed the deposits were necessary to begin work, no work was performed on the Bouvy/ICC contract.
From March, 1993 through June, 1993, Mr. Bouvy made numerous telephone calls to the ICC office to attempt to motivate the company to perform on his contract. During that time ICC performed no work which benefited Mr. Bouvy.
Plans which were promised in connection with the Bouvy contract were not completed. Mr. Bouvy contacted the architect who had been allegedly retained by ICC to prepare the drawings, but was unsuccessful in obtaining plans as the architect disavowed working with ICC.
Finally, Mr. Bouvy notified ICC by letter of his intent to cancel the contract and demanded a return of his deposit.
This demand resulted in the first contact between Respondent and Mr. Bouvy. Respondent, who was at his office in Tampa, spoke with Mr. Bouvy by telephone and attempted to resolve the dispute.
The two reached a verbal understanding that ICC would perform as originally contracted.
For whatever reasons, ICC did not complete the work as specified in the Bouvy contract (and as agreed to verbally by Respondent) nor did Respondent refund the deposit monies.
Mr. Bouvy was damaged as a result of the acts or omissions of Respondent or agents of ICC in an amount not less than $9,368.20.
With regard to the Castrillo property, May Rena Rodin, a licensed real estate agent, was authorized by Mr. Castrillo to obtain repairs to his
hurricane-damaged home in Miami.
To that end Ms. Rodin contracted with ICC for the repairs and provided an initial down payment in the amount of $6,000 for the repairs. The total amount of the contract executed on or about October 28, 1992, was $25,188.00.
Ms. Rodin was responsible for the Castrillo property as the homeowner resides in Canada and, at all times material to this matter, used the home for rental purposes. Ms. Rodin supervised such rental and collected monies on behalf of the owner.
ICC did not perform the contracted work on the Castrillo home. Despite reservations, Ms. Rodin gave ICC a second deposit of $5,481.06 in order to attempt to get the work done.
ICC did not complete the work under the Castrillo contract, did not perform any work of value to the home, and did not refund the $11,481.06 paid by Ms. Rodin on behalf of the Castrillo project.
Ms. Rodin also contracted with ICC for repairs to her own home. This contract, executed in November, 1992, was in the amount of $56,668.00.
At the time of signing Ms. Rodin gave ICC a deposit down payment of
$17,000.00 which was deposited into the NationsBank account identified above.
ICC did perform work on the Rodin home; however, such work did not complete all terms of the contract. Ms. Rodin made additional payments in connection with the progress. The total of all payments to ICC was $40,663.00.
During the course of the work on the Rodin home, a roofer placed a lien on the property claiming he had not been paid for work performed under the roofing subcontract. In addition to other problems known to her, this lien caused Ms. Rodin to distrust ICC.
The amount of the lien was the approximate amount left to be paid on the contract after adjustments ($7,200.00). The contract amount had been reduced to approximately $47,000.00.
ICC refused to complete the work on Ms. Rodin's house and Ms. Rodin refused to pay them any more without the work being completed.
Ultimately, the roofer's lien issue was resolved in favor of the homeowner. Whether ICC owed the roofer is unknown. The roofer did not have an enforceable lien.
As of the date of hearing, Ms. Rodin had still not completed all work at her home.
As a result of a prior disciplinary case in 1985, Respondent was disciplined and fined $1,000.00 by the Construction Industry Licensing Board.
Through January 26, 1996, the Department has incurred costs in the prosecution of this matter in an amount of $1,917.09.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.
Section 489.1195, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part:
A qualifying agent is a primary qualify- ting agent unless he is a secondary qualifying agent under this section.
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.
Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, provides:
The board may take any of the following actions against any certificateholder or registrant: place on probation or reprimand the licensee, revoke suspend, or 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, or assess costs asso- ciated with the investigation and prosecution, if the contractor, financially responsible officer, or business organization for which the contractor is a primary qualifying agent or is a secondary qualifying agent responsi- ble under s. 489.1195 is found guilty of any of the following acts:
* * *
(h) Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mis- management or misconduct occurs when:
* * *
2. The contractor has abandoned a cust- omer'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 con- tractor 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; or
* * *
(k) Abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under con-
tract as a contractor. A project may be presumed abandoned after 90 days if the con- tractor 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.
* * *
(n) Committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
Rule 61G4-17.002, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the mitigating and aggravating factors which may be considered in this matter. They are:
Monetary or other damage to the licensee's customer, in any way associated with the violation, which damage the licensee has not relieved, as of the time the penalty is to be assessed. (This provision shall not be given effect to the extent it would cont- ravene federal bankruptcy law.)
Actual job-site violations of building codes, or conditions exhibiting gross negli- gence, incompetence, or misconduct by the licensee, which have not been corrected as of the time the penalty is being assessed.
The severity of the offense.
The danger to the public.
The number of repetitions of offenses.
The number of complaints filed against the licensee.
The length of time the licensee has practiced.
The actual damage, physical or otherwise, to the licensee's customer.
The deterrent effect of the penalty imposed.
The effect of the penalty upon the licensee's livelihood.
Any efforts at rehabilitation.
Any other mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish by clear and convincing evidence the allegations of this case. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987). It has met that burden.
In this case, the Department has established that the Respondent did not have control over the day-to-day operations of ICC. He allowed others to enter into contracts on behalf of the company, established inadequate guidelines to supervise their activities, and exercised no control over the financial account into which such employees deposited funds belonging to the company.
This unbridled delegation of responsibility caused, at the minimum, $20,849.26 in damages to consumers with whom this company had contracted.
The business opportunities in Dade County after Hurricane Andrew created a tremendous incentive to do construction in that venue. Respondent was charged, by law, with the responsibility to supervise all operations of the
business organization, all field work at all sites; and for financial matters, both for the organization in general and for each specific job. He failed to meet this responsibility. As a result, consumers were damaged.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED:
That Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order suspending Respondent's license, requiring him to make restitution to consumers Bouvy and Castrillo, requiring him to pay costs of this matter, and to pay an administrative fine in the amount
$10,000.00.
DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
JOYOUS D. PARRISH, 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 15th day of May, 1996.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 95-2857, 95-2858 and 95-2859
Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner:
Paragraphs 1 through 9, 13 through 16, 20 through 23, and 28 through 51 are accepted.
Paragraph 10 is rejected as supposition as to its conclusion; it is accepted the two men left town at the time noted and that the monies and bank records also disappeared at that time; however, no other finding is made or relevant to this proceeding.
With regard to paragraph 11, it is accepted that Respondent, as of the date of the hearing, had not provided copies of the financial records related to the ICC bank account in dispute.
Paragraph 12 is rejected as unnecessary or comment.
Paragraph 17 is rejected as hearsay; it is accepted only as to Mr. Bouvy's understanding of why a deposit was required; otherwise also irrelevant.
Paragraph 18 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. It is accepted that Respondent did not control the subject bank account and that he did little to verify the accuracy of the company's records or control the financial activities of the company.
Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. The contract for Mr. Bouvy was later verbally accepted, unchanged, by Respondent in any event.
The first sentence of paragraph 24 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraphs 25, 26, and 27 are rejected as irrelevant
Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent:
1. Paragraphs 1, 5, 7 through 10, 12 through 15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 33,
34, 35, 36, and 46 are accepted.
With regard to paragraph 2, it is accepted that Respondent did not have signatory power over the NationsBank account used in connection with these three consumers; otherwise rejected as not supported by the evidence.
With regard to paragraph 3, it is accepted that Respondent allowed ICC employees to go into the Dade County market area which was devastated by Hurricane Andrew to solicit business on behalf of the company; otherwise rejected as either not supported by the weight of the credible evidence or irrelevant to the ultimate issues of this case.
With regard to paragraph 4, it is accepted that the ICC employees and the bank records and funds belonging to the company disappeared at approximately the same time; otherwise rejected as supposition not supported by direct evidence or irrelevant to the ultimate issues of the case if referring to the "contract" between the employees and the company and not the contract entered with consumers.
Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant.
Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant.
With regard to paragraph 16, it is accepted that the architect believes he visited the Bouvy home; however, he did not meet personally with Mr. Bouvy regarding the plans needed for the home.
With regard to paragraph 17, it is accepted that the architect prepared preliminary drawings for Mr. Bouvy which were never accepted by the consumer; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence.
With regard to paragraph 18, if true, irrelevant since Mr. Bouvy had never accepted the plans and agreed that they would be used for the work to be performed.
With regard to paragraph 21, it is rejected to the extent that it suggests Mr. Bouvy advised anyone that the Respondent had presented acceptable plans for review; it may be the comment was attributed to another contractor's plan who was to perform work for Mr. Bouvy. Rejection is contrary to the weight of the credible evidence.
With regard to paragraph 22, no finding is made as to whether the address is accurate since the record is conflicting on this point.
With regard to paragraph 26, no finding is made as to the exact amount being $11,000; such is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence.
With regard to paragraph 27, the payment was made to ICC or its agent; otherwise rejected as supposition or irrelevant.
Paragraphs 28 through 32 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence or irrelevant.
Paragraphs 37 through 45 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, irrelevant, repetitive, supposition not supported by directed evidence, or hearsay.
With regard to paragraphs 47 and 48, it is accepted that Respondent made an offer to complete work on Ms. Rodin's home; however, by that time she was too fearful of the company to do business with it. The lien incident and her personal knowledge of the Castrillo home influenced her decision. While the lien may have been unenforceable, no evidence of full payment to the subcontractor was presented in this cause.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Richard Hickok Executive Director Construction Industry
Licensing Board Department of Business and
Professional Regulation
7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300
Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel
Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Construction Industry Licensing Board
Northwood Centre
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Gary Asbell Senior Attorney
Department of Business and Professional Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Charles G. White, Esquire
2250 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 150
Miami, Florida 33129
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
================================================================= AGENCY MOTION FOR CORRECTED ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,
Petitioner,
DOAH CASE NOS: 95-2857, 95-2858
v. 95-2859
DBPR CASE NOS: 93-11344, 93-11951,
MICHAEL A. CHRISTY, 93-11952
Respondent.
/
MOTION FOR CORRECTED ORDER
Comes now, the Petitioner by and through the undersigned Attorney pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 60Q-2.032 and moves the Honorable Hearing Officer for entry of a corrected order in the above referenced cases and as grounds therefore alleges:
At issue in this proceeding were Second Amended Administrative Complaints in DOAH case numbers 95-2857, 95-2858 and 95-2859 (DBPR case numbers 93-11344, 93-11951 and 93-11952 respectively).
In DOAH case number 95-2857 (DBPR case number 93-11344) Respondent was charged with committing violations of Chapter 489.129(1)(k), (h)2, (m), (n) and (j), Florida Statutes in five separate counts of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint.
In DOAH case number 95-2858 (DBPR case number 93-11951) Respondent was charged with committing violations of Chapter 489.129(1)(k), (h)2 and (n), Florida Statutes in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint in three separate counts.
In DOAH case number 95-2859 (DBPR case number 93-11952) Respondent was charged with violating Chapter 489.129(1)(k), (h)1, (h)2, (d) and (n), Florida Statutes in five separate counts of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint.
In the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order issued May 15, 1996, the Recommended Order sets forth the charges for Chapter 489.129(1)(k), (h)2 and (n), Florida Statutes and concludes that the Petitioner has proven the charges by clear and convincing evidence.
There were thirteen counts at issue between the three cases tried by consolidated formal hearing. Petitioner respectfully requests the Honorable Hearing Officer to render conclusions of law on the thirteen charged counts whether proven or unproven, so that these cases can be forwarded to the Construction Industry Licensing Board for Final Action. As the situation now
exists the Petitioner cannot ascertain whether the Hearing Officer intended that the (k), (h)2 and (n) violations applied to all three cases or only one of the cases, or if only one case which case that was.
The Petitioner has, because of short notice, been unable to contact counsel for Respondent to ascertain whether there is to be an objection to the granting of this motion.
The undersigned represents and certifies that this pleading is not filed to harass Respondent or to delay these proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary L. Asbell Senior Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0853615 Department of Business and
Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
(904) 488-0062
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR CORRECTED ORDER was served by U.S. Mail on Charles G. White, Esquire, 2250 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 150, Miami, Florida 33129 this 28th day of May, 1996.
Gary L. Asbell Senior Attorney
================================================================= DOAH ORDER REGARDING AGENCY'S MOTION FOR CORRECTED ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ) PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING ) BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
) CASE NOS. 95-2857
vs. ) 95-2858
) 95-2859
MICHAEL A. CHRISTY, )
)
Respondent. )
)
ORDER
On May 28, 1996, the Petitioner filed a motion for corrected order that sought clarification of the recommended order entered in this cause on May 15, 1996. More specifically, the motion requested additional conclusions of law as to all alleged violations. A response to the motion has not been filed. Being advised in the premises, it is
ORDERED:
Except as clarified below, the motion is denied.
It is concluded that as to consumers Bouvy and Castrillo, Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(h), (k), and (n), Florida Statutes. As to consumer Rodin, Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(k) and (n), Florida Statutes.
DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
JOYOUS D. PARRISH, 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 11th day of June, 1996.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Gary L. Asbell Senior Attorney
Department of Business and Professional Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Charles G. White
2250 Southwest Third Avenue Suite 150
Miami, Florida 33129
Docket for Case No: 95-002857
| Issue Date |
Proceedings |
|
Jul. 16, 1996 |
(Respondent) Exceptions to Recommended Order filed. |
|
Jun. 11, 1996 |
Order sent out. (ruling on motion for corrected order) |
|
May 28, 1996 |
(Petitioner) Motion for Corrected Order filed. |
|
May 15, 1996 |
Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 10/24/95.
|
|
Mar. 20, 1996 |
(Respondent) Proposed Recommended Order; Stipulation for Filing Affidavit in Lieu of Deposition Testimony; Affidavit w/cover letter filed. |
|
Mar. 13, 1996 |
(Petitioner) (Proposed) Recommended Order filed. |
|
Mar. 13, 1996 |
(Petitioner) Notice of Filing Affidavits of Costs Associated With Investigation and Prosecution; (3) Affidavit filed. |
|
Feb. 02, 1996 |
Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Recommended Orders sent out. (due 3/15/96) |
|
Feb. 02, 1996 |
(Respondent) Motion for 30-Day Extension to Submit Proposed Orders; (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
|
Jan. 30, 1996 |
(Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition; Motion for 30-Day Extension to Submit Proposed Orders filed. |
|
Jan. 03, 1996 |
(2 Volumes) Transcript of the Proceedings filed. |
|
Oct. 24, 1995 |
CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
|
Sep. 12, 1995 |
(Respondent) Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed. |
|
Jun. 29, 1995 |
Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 10/24/95; 10:30am; Miami) |
|
Jun. 29, 1995 |
Order of Consolidation sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 95-2857, 95-2858, 95-2859) |
|
Jun. 20, 1995 |
(Petitioner) Response to Initial Order filed. |
|
Jun. 09, 1995 |
Initial Order issued. |
|
Jun. 02, 1995 |
Second Amended Administrative Complaint; Amended Administrative Complaint; Answer and Affirmative Defenses; Agency referral letter; Administrative Complaint; Election of Rights (w/attachment) filed. |
Orders for Case No: 95-002857
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
May 15, 1996 |
Recommended Order
|
Licensee harmed consumers by failing to timely complete work.
|
