Petitioner: DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD
Respondent: WALCOTT GEORGE ALLEN
Judges: MICHAEL M. PARRISH
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Locations: Miami, Florida
Filed: Mar. 16, 2000
Status: Closed
Settled and/or Dismissed prior to entry of RO/FO on Tuesday, August 15, 2000.
Latest Update: Oct. 05, 2024
ne eS
~ a S
. er v
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATEON
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD
DIVISION I
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,
oh llHY SLBA 02:
Petitioner,
Case No. 97-14016
vs. O0[ls?
WALCOTT GEORGE ALLEN,
Respondent.
/
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL
REGULATION, ("Petitioner"), files this Administrative Complaint
before the Construction Industry Licensing Board (“CILB”),
against WALCOTT GEORGE ALLEN, ("Respondent"), 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, ‘Plorida statutes.
2. Respondent is, and at all times material hereto has
been, a Certified General Contractor, in the State of Florida,
having | “license number ce co47402. a
a Respondent ': s last ‘known, address. is 17405 5. W. - ost
Court, Miami, Florida "33157- “4001.
4. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the
licensed qualifier for Lancewood Construction, Inc. (hereinafter
ack a
AM i al
Sonanaial
referred to as "Lancewood") .
5. At all times material hereto, Lancewood failed to
obtain a certificate of authority as required by Section
489.119(2), Florida Statutes.
6. At some time or times, including some time or times
prior to November 23, 1996, Rawlings Bisesar (“Bisesar”) was a
Lancewood employee, " supervisor, salesperson, or agent. At all
times material hereto, Bisesar was not licensed to practice
contracting in the State of Florida, and the Respondent knew or
had reasonable grounds to know this.
7. On or about November 23, 1996, Bisesar contracted with |
Sheila Davis (“Davis”) to construct an addition to Davis’s
residence at 12525 N.W. 17°* Place, Miami, Dade County, Florida,
for $57,500.00.
8. Bisesar induced Davis to sign the contract and make
payments pursuant thereto by representing in a business card and
otherwise that he was licensed and insured and that he was
“and the ‘business card ‘contained the ‘Respondent's ‘license “number.
ee
9. On or about January 15,°1997, building permit number
97036333 for the contracted work was obtained from the Dade
affiliated with the Respondent and Lancewood. Both the contract
county Departivent of Planning, ‘Bevelopinent, ‘and “Regulation. “by ‘and -
through the Respondent’s licensure.
‘10. Pursuant to the contract, Davis made payments to
Bisesar as follows: $20,000.00 on November 26, 1996; $15,000.00
2
ce peri
pee era
eee Ts
t
on February 6,_
, 1997.
11. During the period from about November 25, 1996 through
about April 28, 1997, Bisesar performed or attempted to perform,
but did not complete, the work called for by the contract.
' Thereafter Bisesar failed, without just cause and notice to
Davis, to perform further work.
12. At the time that Bisesar discontinued performance or
attempted performance of the work, a substantial amount of the
work remained to be done, including roof truss, roof, interior
wall framing, electrical and plumbing work, even though, pursuant
to Article 4 of the contract, ‘the second draw of $15,000.00
should have completed the roof truss and interior wall framing
work, and the third draw should have completed the electrical and
plumbing work. Thereafter, Davis completed the roof work on or
about May 11, 1997, and she paid for that work with four payments
directly to Bisesar’ s roofing subcontractor in the total amount
of $4,200.00.
13. After. Davis Filed a complaint with the Petitioner, on
November 12, 1997, _the Respondent agreed to assume. personal
responsibility for completion of the contracted work ‘by ‘December
15, 1997; however, the Respondent failed, without just cause “and
notice to Pavis, to complete the work.
14. The contract ‘contained a - provision “calling for any
disputes under ‘the contract: to be ‘resolved by binding
arbitration. Pursuant to that provision, an arbitrator of the
3
wh 7)
american Arbitration Association, Construction Industry
Arbitration Tribunal, conducted an arbitration proceeding. The
named parties to that proceeding were Davis, the Respondent, and
Bisesar. On February 26, 1998, an arbitration award was entered
in favor of Davis and against the Respondent and Bisesar. The
award imposed joint and several responsibility upon the
Respondent and Bisesar for making payment to Davis within fifteen
(15) days in the principal amount of $31,250.00 plus arbitration
costs of $1,250.00. The Respondent and Bisesar failed to make
any payments. .
15. On May 29, 1998, Davis filed suit against the
Respondent and Bisesar in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, Case No. 98-
12265 CA 01, to have the arbitration award confirmed. On May 14,
1999, by means of that lawsuit Davis obtained a civil judgment
relating to the practice of contracting against the Respondent
and Bisesar. The judgment ordered that Davis recover from the
Respondent and Bisesar the principal amount of $31,250.00,
“arbitration c sts of $1,250.00, court costs of $225.00, and
16. _The judgment 3 has not been ‘satisfied or "appealed, and no
:
mutually gre d payment plen has been entered into to “satisfy the
judgment.
17. CILB Rule 61G4-17.001(23), Florida Administrative Code,
reads as follows:
perecge = epee seer
oc i
489. 129(1) (a) J, F.s., * ‘reasonable time” means ninety
(90) days following the entry of a civil judgment that
is not appealed. The Board will consider a mutually
agreed upon payment plan as satisfaction of such a
judgment so long as the payments are current.
18. The Respondent has failed within a reasonable time to
satisfy the judgment.
COUNT I
13. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations
set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 18 as though fully stated
herein.
20. Based upon the foregoing, the Respondent is guilty of
having violated Section 489. 129(1) (e), Florida Statutes (1995),
by performing any act which assists a ‘person or entity in
engaging in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered practice
of contracting, if the certificateholder or registrant knows or
has reasonable grounds to know that the person or entity was
uncertified and unregistered.
_ COUNT II
2h. “Petitioner realleges and nd incorporates the allegations
set forth in | Paragraphs 1 1 through. 18 as though fully stated
herein.
22. Based upon the foregoing, the Respondent is guilty of
having violated” ‘Section 489, 129(1) (3), Florida Statutes (1995),
by failing in any material respect to comply with the provisions
of this part or violating a rule or lawful order of the board; by
5
OE TERT eRe yn PRR we we came peers