oxo 4 STATE OF FLORIDA oy DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION “25 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD . DIVISION I : DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, Case No. 2007-012696 v. PAUL HANSEN, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ("Petitioner"), files this Administrative Complaint before the Construction Industry Licensing Board, against PAUL HANSEN, ("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 ail times material hereto, a Certified Residential Contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CRC 56902. 3. Respondent's last known addresses of record are 1424-2 SE 17™ Avenue, Cape Coral, FL 33990; P. O. Box 151735, Cape Coral, FL 33915-1735; and, 1436 SE 16" Place, Cape Coral, FL 33909. 4. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the primary qualifying agent for Hansen Homes of South Florida, Inc. ("HHSF"), which has a certificate of authority, QB 13128. 1 5. Section 489.1*95(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides tha’ ‘1 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. 6. On or about December 28, 2004, HHSF entered into a contract with Ginette Osme ("Osme") to build a home on the property located at 2018 NE 25" Terrace, Cape Coral, FL 33909 (“Contract 1”). . 7. The total contract price for Contract 1 was $141,075.00, of which $14,071.50 was paid to HHSF on or about February 25, 2005. . 8. Respondent applied for a permit for the property on Contract 1 on May 25, 2006. The permit was approved on or about June 23, 2006. 9. Neither Respondent nor anyone on behalf of HHSF paid the permit fees to date or picked up the permit upon approval for Contract 1. 10. As aresult, the permit for Contract 1 has expired and is now void as of December 12, 2006 as it was never renewed by Respondent or HHSF. 11. Neither Respondent nor HHSF completed any work on Contract 1 from the date that HHSF was paid on or about February 25, 2005 until the permit application on or.about May 25, 2006. 12. There was no just cause for Respondent and/or HHSF to fail to complete any work on Contract 1 during the time period from February 25, 2005 until May 25, 2006. 13. Neither Respondent nor HHSF completed any work on Contract 1 from the date that the permit was approved on or about June 23, 2006 to February 20, 2007. ' 14, There was no just cause for Respondent and/or HHSF to fail to complete any work on Contract 1 during the time period from June 23, 2006 until February 20, 2007. 15. Financing and funding for the construction loan remained in place for Contract 1 from February 25, 2005 until February 20, 2007. 2 16. There were r~ financial issues on part of Osme that cr -ed any delays or abandonment of the construction work by Respondent or HHSF on Contract 1, 17. There are at least ninety (90) days between February 25, 2005 and May 25, 2006, in which Respondent did no work on Contract 1 and did not have just cause for failing to complete any work during that period. 18. At the time of abandonment from February 25, 2005 to May 25, 2006, the percentage of completion of work by Respondent and/or HHSF on Contract 1 is less than the amount of monies received by Respondent and/or HHSF. 19. There are at least ninety (90) days between June 23, 2006 and February 20, 2007, in which Respondent and/or HHSF did no work on Contract 1 and did not have just cause for failing to complete any work during that period. 20. At the time of abandonment from June 23, 2006 to February 20, 2007, the percentage of completion of work by Respondent and/or HHSF on Contract 1 is less than the amount of monies received by Respondent and/or HHSF. 21. On or about January 13, 2005, HHSF entered into a contract with Osme to build a home on the property located at 1711 NE 13" Terrace, Cape Coral, FL 33909 (“Contract 2”). 22. The total contract price for Contract 2 was $195,075.00, of which $19,507.50 was paid to HHSF on or about February 24, 2005. 23, A seawall permit for the property of Contract 2 was applied for on or about June 9, 2005. The permit was approved on or about June 9, 2005 and the inspection was finalized for "the seawall on or about September 2, 2005. This was done at a total cost to HHSF of $13,500.00, which was less than the amount of the initial payment received on or about February 24, 2005. 24, There was n- ~ther work done by Respondent or HH’ on the property for Contract 2 until a letter of acknowledgement was signed on or about May 16, 2006 in which HHSF acknowledged receiving $33,007.50 in funds from Osme for the property of Contract 2 and both Osme and Respondent re-affirmed the remaining balance due totaling $173,067.50. 25. Neither Respondent nor HHSF completed any work on Contract 2 from the date that the seawall was finalized on or about September 2, 2005 until the date on which Respondent and Osme reaffirmed the balance remaining due on or about May 16, 2006. 26, There was no just cause for Respondent and/or HHSF to fail to complete any work on Contract 2 during the time period from September 2, 2005 until May 16, 2006. 27. Neither Respondent nor HHSF completed any work on Contract 2 from the date that the balance remaining due was reaffirmed on or about May 16, 2006 to February 20, 2007. 28. There was no just cause for Respondent and/or HHSF to fail to complete any work on Contract 2 during the time period from May 16, 2006 until February 20, 2007. 29. Financing and funding for the construction loan for Contract 2 remained in place from February 24, 2005 until February 20, 2007. 30. There were no financial issues on part of Osme that caused any delays or abandonment of the construction work on Contract 2 by Respondent or HHSF. 31. There are at least ninety (90) days between September 2, 2005 and May 16, 2006, in which Respondent did no work on Contract 2 and did not have just cause for failing to complete any work during that period. 32. At the time of abandonment of Contract 2 from September 2, 2005 to May 16, 2006, the percentage of completion of work on Contract 2 by Respondent and/or HHSF is less than the amount of monies received by Respondent and/or HHSF. 33. There are at least ninety (90) days between May 16, 2006 and February 20, 2007, in which Respondent did no work on Contract 2 and did not have just cause for failing to complete any work during that period. 34. At the time o* bandonment from May 16, 2006 to Fe! cary 20, 2007, the percentage of completion of work by Respondent and/or HHSF on Contract 2 is less than the amount of monies received by Respondent and/or HHSF. COUNT I 35. __ Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 34 as though fully set forth herein. 36. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(g)2, Florida Statutes, on both Contract 1 and Contract 2 by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct occurs when the contractor has abandoned a customer's job and the percentage of completion is less that than the percentage of the total contract price paid to the contractor as of the time of abandonment, unless the contractor is entitled to retain such funds under the terms of the contract or refunds the excess funds within 30 days after the job is abandoned. COUNT II 37. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 34 as though fully set forth herein. 38. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated section 489,129(1)(j), Florida . Statutes, on both Contract 1 and Contract 2 by abandoning the construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. A project may be presumed abandoned after 90 days if the contractor 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. COUNT III 39. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 34 as though fully set forth herein. 40. Based upon t'~ foregoing, the Respondent violated Se ‘on 489.129(1)(0), Florida Statutes, on both Contract 1 and Contract 2 by failing to obtain or even apply for the necessary permit to begin work. COUNT IV 41. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 40 as though fully set forth herein. 42. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by committing incompetence or mismanagement in the practice of contracting WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter an Order imposing one or more of the following penalties: place on probation, reprimand the licensee, revoke, suspend, 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, assess costs associated with investigation and prosecution, impose any or all penalties delineated within section 455.227(2), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board is authorized to impose pursuant to . Chapters 489, 455, Florida Statutes, and/or the rules Promuigated t thereunder. Signed this _ | oe day of , 2007. AL By: Matthew D. Morton Assistant General Counsel COUNSEL FOR DEPARTMENT: F | | E p sion : Department of Business and Professional Regu RK Matthew D. Morton AGENCY CLEI Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation ow rong Office of the General Counsel CLERK Soanhs f. W “ 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 42 ote d-L1-Z007_ Tallahassee. FL 32399-2202 PC Found: July 3, 2007 6 Div. i: Clark & Burke

Docket for Case No: 08-000924PL