Mar 14 2008 16:43 g@a/ld/2aee 16:43 4874258268 WRIGHT FULFORD MOORH PAGE 3/15 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING ROARD DIVISION I DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, Case No. 2007-010951 Vv. 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 prnctice 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 hereto, a Certified Résidential Contractor in the State of Florida, having been issucd license number CRC 54902. 3. Respondent's last known addresses of record are 1424-2 SE|17" Avenue, Cape Coral, FL 33990; P. O. Box 151733, Cape Coral, FL 33915-1735; and, 1436 SE 16" Place, Cape Coral, FT. 33909. / 4. Atal] 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 Mar 14 2008 16:44 g@a/ld/2aee 16:43 4874258268 WRIGHT FULFORD MOORH PAGE @4/15 a ™ 5. Section 489... 35(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides thar alt 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. In January 2005, HHSF entered into two contracts with John and Jodi Lopata ("Lopata") to build residences on the properties located at 4722 NW 36” Terrace, Cape Coral, Florida (“Property 1”) and 4221 NW 324 Terrace, Cape Coral, Florida (“Property 2”). 7, The total contract price for Property 1 was $146,959.00, of which $14,695.90 was paid to HHSF on or about February 28, 2005. 8. The total contract price for Property 2 was $149,079.00, of which $14,907.90 was paid to HHSF on or about February 21, 2005. 9. Respondent applied for a permit on Property 1 on or about December 1, 2006. The permit for Property 1 was approved on or about December 29, 2006. 10. Neither Respondent nor anyone on behalf of HHSF paid the permit fees to date or picked up the permit upon approval for Property 1. 1]. The permit has since been voided. 12. Neither Respondent nor HHSF performed any work on Property 1 from the date of the payrnent on or about February 28, 2005 until the application for the permit was submitted on or about December 7, 2006. 13. Neither Respondent nor HHSF performed any work on Property 1 from the date the permit was approved on ar ahout December 9, 2006 until March 26, 2007. 14. Financing and funding for the construction loan for Property 1 remained in place for a period that covered in excess of ninety (90) days between February 28, 2005 and March 26, 2007. Mar 14 2008 16:44 g@a/ld/2aee 16:43 4874258268 WRIGHT FULFORD MOORH PAGE i . os ~ 15. There is at Icust one nincty (90) day period between Furuary 28, 2005 and December 7, 2006, in which Respondent did no work on Property 1 and did not have just cause for failing to complete any work on Property 1 during each said ninety (90) day period. 16. At the time of abandonment on Property 1, the percentage of completion of work by Respondent and/or HHSF on Property 1 is less than the amount of monies received by Respondent and/or HHSF for Property 1. 17, Respondent applied for a permit on Property 2 on or about July 27, 2005. The permit for Property 2 was approved on or about August 19, 2005. 18. Neither Respondent nor anyone on behalf of HHSF paid the permit fees to date or picked up the permit upon approval for Property 2. 19. The permit was voided after six (6) months as a result of Respondent's failure to pick up or pay for the permit for Property 2. 20. Respondent re-applied for a permit on Property 2.on or about December 7, 2006. The permit for Property 2 was approved on or about January 2, 2007. 21. Neither Respondent nor anyone on behalf of HHSF paid the permit fees to date or picked up the permit upon approval for Property 2. 22. The permit has since been voided. 23, Neither Respondent nor HHSF performed any work on Property 2 from the date of the payment on or about February 21, 2005 until the application for the permit was submitted on or about July 27, 2005. 24. Neither Respondent nor HHSF performed any work on Property 2 from the date the permit was approved on or about August 19, 2005 until the application for the permit was submitted on or about December 7, 2006. 25, Neither Respondent nor HHSF performed any work on Property | from the date the permit was approved on or about January 2, 2007 until March 26, 2007. @5/15 Mar 14 2008 16:44 aa/ld/2age 16:43 4ard25e26e WRIGHT FULFORD MOORH PAGE 6/15 . | m ~ 26. ‘Financing any .unding for the construction loan for Property 2 remained in place for a period that covered in excess of ninety (90) days between February 21, 2005 and March 26, 2007. 27, There is at least one ninety (90) day period between February 21, 2005 and July 27, 2005, in which Respondent did no work on Property 2 and did not have just cause for failing to complete any work on Property 1 during each said ninety (90) day period. 28. ‘There is at least one ninety (90) day period between August 19, 2005 and December 7, 2006, in which Respondent did no work on Property 2 and did not have just cause for failing to complete any work on Property 1 during each said ninety (90) day period. 29, At the time of abandonment on Property 2, the percentage of completion of work by Respondent and/or HHSF on Property 2 is less than the amount of monies received by Respondent and/or HHSF for Property 2. COUNT I 30. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set forth herein. 3]. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(g)2, Florida Statutes, 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 fonds within 30 days after the job is abandoned. COUNT II 32. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set forth herein. Mar 14 2008 16:44 g@a/ld/2aee 16:43 4874258268 WRIGHT FULFORD MOORH PAGE @7/15 ~ “ 33. Based on the -uregoing, Respondent violated section +~2.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, 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 HI 34, Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set forth herein. 35, Based upon the foregoing, the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(0), Florida Statutes, by proceeding on this jub withoul paying the necessary fees to have the permit issued, failing to obtain the permit once it was approved and failing to obtain any inspections. COUNT IV 36. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35 as though fully set forth herein. 37. 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 Mar 14 2008 16:45 g@a/ld/2aee 16:43 4874258268 WRIGHT FULFORD MOORH PAGE 8/15 a, ss Chapters 489, 454, Florida SV. ntes, and/or the rules Se mneate then. under. Signed this @ zi “day of 2007. vo ED Mano &® Bushand By: Matthew ®. Morton Assistant General Counsel COUNSEL FOR DEPARTMENT: F | L c i and Professional Regulation Matthew D. Morton Department of Business an jot Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Office of the General Counsel CLERK. pr Arran nm, 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste, 42 ty od A. W Tallahassee, FL 32399-2202 DATE, i: -3I-20071

Docket for Case No: 08-001302PL