Petitioner: DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD
Respondent: CARLOS DIAZ
Judges: LARRY J. SARTIN
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Locations: Miami, Florida
Filed: Jul. 03, 2000
Status: Closed
Settled and/or Dismissed prior to entry of RO/FO on Thursday, August 17, 2000.
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2024
ek ane ad al al
y: vs ; +
w : /
; STATE OF FLORIDA ky &
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGU nf 4)
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOREL. My,
DIVISION I ison , Cr
“AO Bag GO
YP,
| DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND Bo
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,
Petitioner, Case No. 98-18996
08789
vs.
CARLOS DIAZ,
Respondent .
. /
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL
REGULATION, ("Petitioner"), files this Administrative Complaint
before the construction Industry Licensing Board, against CARLOS
DIAZ, ("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, Florida Statutes.
2. Respondent is, and has been at all times material
f
hereto, a Certified General Contractor, in the State of Florida,
“having been issued license number CG C047358.
3. Respondent's last known address and address of record is
ase1 SW 27th Lane, Miami, Florida 33155.
Sea
ee gue
BS)
w \e
4. At all material times hereto, Respondent was licensed as
qualifying agent for tri County Home Improvement, Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as “Contractor), and as such was
responsible for the acts, omissions, and financial conduct of the
pusiness as it relates to contracting.
5. On or about March 14, 1998, Contractor contracted with
TONI R. KING (hereinafter “KING) to install windows and pressure
clean and paint the complete exterior of King’s house located at
7520 Juniper Street, Miramar, Florida.
6. The contract price was originally $14,400.00, however
subsequent change orders reduced the contract price to $7,860.00.
7. KING obtained bank financing in the amount of the
original contract price, $14,400.00.
8. Contractor was given a check for the proceeds of the