The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a certified roofing contractor in the state of Florida should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Christopher G. Coxon, held a license as a certified roofing contractor, number CGC029604. On or about November 15, 1988, Respondent entered into a written contract with John DeCarlucci to repair a leak in the roof of DeCarlucci's residence at 1717 North Oregon Circle, Tampa, Florida. The contract amount was $400.00, of which Respondent was paid $200.00 by DeCarlucci on November 16, 1988. The Respondent gave DeCarlucci a one-year warranty on his work. The balance owed on the contract was to be paid upon satisfactory completion of the job. Respondent commenced work on the DeCarlucci residence on November 16, 1988. On November 16, 1988 Respondent removed two rows of roofing tile from DeCarlucci's roof while attempting to repair the leak in the roof. The Respondent carried these roofing tiles away from DeCarlucci's residence on November 16, 1988 and has never returned these roofing tiles or provided DeCarlucci with any replacement roofing tiles. On November 23, 1988 the area of the roof that Respondent had attempted to repair leaked. As a result of several telephone calls to Respondent from DeCarlucci, the Respondent returned to the job site on November 26, 1988 and December 7, 1988, and whatever repairs the Respondent attempted on those dates failed in that the roof continues to leak. After December 7, 1988 the Respondent did not return to the job site. DeCarlucci attempted to reach Respondent through the remainder of December 1988 and January and February 1989 by telephone and a certified letter but to no avail. As a result of DeCarlucci filing a complaint with the City of Tampa Building Department on January 5, 1989, the job site was inspected by the construction inspector for the building department and the project cited for violation of the building code. Respondent was notified of the complaint and building code violation. The Respondent was given until February 14, 1989 to correct the leakage and to replace the missing roofing tiles. As a result of Respondent's failure to take any corrective action toward repairing the roof or replacing the missing roofing tiles, the DeCarlucci complaint was filed with the City of Tampa Unified Construction Trades Board for disciplinary action. The Respondent subsequently returned the $200.00 to DeCarlucci that he had received from DeCarlucci on the contract price on November 16, 1988. In its complaint against the Respondent the City of Tampa Unified Construction Trades Board alleged that Respondent's failure to properly repair the roof was a violation of Section 101.1-Covering, Standard for the Installation to Roof Coverings, 1985, edition, Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., and Section 25-101(5)(10) and (22) Grounds for Disciplinary Action, Penalties, City of Tampa, Building and Construction Regulations. Respondent was duly notified of the hearing to be held on April 4, 1989 on the allegations. At the hearing on April 4, 1989 the Respondent was found to have violated those sections set forth in Finding of Fact 13 and by unanimous decision the Board ordered Respondent to cease all construction activity and revoked the Respondent's permitting privilege. At no time material to this proceeding, has the Respondent made restitution to DeCarlucci for the missing roofing tiles or the cost of labor and materials for installing such tiles. While Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, provides for the assessment of costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of a case, there was no evidence presented by the Department as to the amount of those costs.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and disciplinary guidelines set forth in Rule 21E-17.001, Florida Administrative Code, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Christopher G. Coxon guilty of violation of Section 489.129(1)(d)(i) and (m), Florida Statutes, and for such violation revoke his license as a certified roofing contractor. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120-59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed findings of fact: 4-6(1); 7-8(2); 9-10(3); 11(4); 13-16(5); 17-18(3); 19(6); 20-21(7); 22-23(8); 24-26(9); 27 28(10); 29-30(11); 31(12); 32(16); 33(13); 34(14); and 35- 36(15). Proposed findings of fact 1-3 are covered in the Preliminary Statement. Proposed finding of fact 12 is rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. See proposed findings of fact 20 and 21 and finding of fact 7. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent The Respondent did not submit any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig M. Dickinson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Christopher Coxon 554 Carson Drive Tampa, FL 33615 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding Respondent was a registered building contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RB 0009164. At no time material to this proceeding was Domingo Alonzo (a/k/a Domingo Alonzo) registered, certified or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent and Alonzo signed and submitted a proposal to Myron M. Gold and Roberta Fox for remodeling and additions to their residence located at 1550 Zuleta Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida in accordance with plans prepared by Frese - Camner Associates on file with the City of Coral Gables, Florida, File No. 2897 for a contract price of $65,940.00 with draw schedules attached. On December 6, 1982, Myron M. Gold and Roberta Fox (Homeowners) accepted the Proposal (Contract). On December 6, 1982, the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $3,297.00 in accordance with the contract whereby they were to receive 5 percent of the contract amount as a down payment upon signing. The draw schedule provided for a 10 percent retainage from each draw which was to be paid to Respondent and Alonzo upon completion and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. On December 21, 1982 the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $2,025.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 3 for $1,350.00, Schedule II - Item 2 for $360.00 and Item 5 for $315.00. On December 17, 1982 the Homeowners and Respondent filed the affidavit required by ordinance with the City of Coral Gables for the purpose of having a building permit issued covering the work under the contract. 9. On January 19, 1983 Respondent using his building contractors license applied for building permit to cover the work anticipated under the contract and on the same day was issued building permit, No. 28214. Under the contract the Homeowners were to pay for the building permit and the bond required by the city. On January 26, 1983 the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $3,000.00 which along with a payment on January 27, 1983 of $500.00 and January 31, 1983 of $544.60 represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 2 for $405.00, Item 5 for $1,260.00, Item 6 for $1,547.10 and Item 13 for $832.50. All payments from December 6, 1982 through January 31, 1983 under the contract by the Homeowners totaled $9,366.50 and were paid jointly to Respondent and Alonzo. On February 4, 1983 Respondent and Alonzo entered into an agreement, prepared by Myron Gold in the law office of Gold and Fox, whereby the Homeowners were to pay the balance of the funds remaining under the contract to Alonzo individually. After this date all payments were made to Alonzo. It was the Homeowners understanding after the February 3, 1983 agreement that Respondent would still be responsible for the supervision of the construction although they never saw Respondent again until October 1983. Edward Borysiewicz testified that he dealt with Respondent during March 1983 when he made the floor slab inspection on March 3, 1983 and the columns inspection on March 14, 1983. The record is clear that shortly after the agreement on February 3, 1983 Respondent no longer came to the construction site and supervised the work of Alonzo. On February 8, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $3,060.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 1 for $810.00, Item 5 for $1,417.50 and Item 13 for $832.50. On February 28, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $3,155.40 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 4 for $1,705.50 and $729.90 for extras apparently not covered by the contract but whether the balance of check No. 1161 (Pet. Ex. 13) of $720.00 was for payment under the contract or for extras is not shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15. On March 18, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $1,000 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 9 for $819.00. Again whether the balance of check No. 1206 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13) of $181.00 is for payment under the contract or for extras is not shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15. On March 21, 1983, the Homeowners paid Alonzo $6,400.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Items 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15. On March 21, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $2,166.90 but Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 does not list check No. 1210 as being a payment under the contract or for extras. On March 31, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $4,230.00 which represents a draw under Schedule I - Item 7 for $2,520.00 and a payment for extras not covered under the contract in the amount of $1,710.00. On April 21, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $5,207.40 which represented a draw Schedule I - Items 1, 5, 6, 9 and 14. On June 24, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $5,788.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 12 for $667.00, Item 14 for $3,024.00 and payment for extras not under contract for $2,097.00. After March 14, 1983 Respondent was not seen on the job site and there was no longer any apparent supervision of Alonzo by Respondent. After Respondent left the job site there was no licensed building contractor involved in the construction. After Respondent left the construction site the Homeowners soon realized that Alonzo did not know how to proceed with the work and experienced problems with the pace and manner in which the work was being accomplished. On July, 1983, Alonzo stopped working altogether. Although the Homeowners were aware of the problems that Alonzo was having with the construction and that Respondent was not on the job, the record does not reflect that they ever attempted to contact Respondent after the meeting on February 3, 1983. On August 1, 1983 the Homeowners notified Respondent and Alonzo that the contract had been terminated. The Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo $42,174.20 total under the contract (pages 1-5, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15) and paid Alonzo $10,766.37 for extras (Pages 6- 10, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15). On August 31, 1983 the Homeowners paid Edward Bryant, plastering contractor the sum of $3,100.00 for plastering performed by Edward Bryant. This was for work under the contract that had not been completed or work necessary to correct problems that were already completed. Roberta Fox testified that there were no extras on plaster, however, page 7, line 11 and page 9, line 21 of Petitioner's Exhibit 15 indicates that there was extra plastering. On August 29, 1983 and September 29, 1983 the Homeowners paid Southwest Plumbing Services, Inc. the total amount of $4,875.00 for work contemplated under the contract that had not been completed or needed correction. Homeowners had paid Alonzo $3,591.00 for plumbing under the contract. Both Alonzo and Southwest Plumbing, Inc. were paid for extra plumbing not covered by the contract in the amount of $567.00 and $391.50, respectively by the Homeowners. From September 13, 1983 through June 13, 1984 the Homeowners paid Charles Brueg, Jim Brueg, Charles Buffington and Dan, Inc. the total amount of $4,192.91 for electrical work contemplated under the contract that was not completed or required correction after Alonzo left the construction site. Page 6 lines 6 and 11 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 indicate that there were extras not covered by the contract. The total amount for electricity contemplated by the contract was $3,649.00. Alonzo was paid $2,627.10 under the contract and $1,710.00 for extras. The Homeowners were required to obtain the services of an air conditioning contractor to complete the work contemplated under the contract after Alonzo left the job site and as a result were required to pay Cameron, Inc., the air conditioning contract the amount of $5,181.60 between August 16, 1983 and January 24, 1984. The total amount contemplated under the contract was $3,600.00 of which $1,134.00 had been paid to Alonzo. Debris was dumped in the swimming pool requiring the Homeowners to pay $7,000 to refurbish the swimming pool. This amount included the repair contemplated under the contract and the extra work caused by Alonzo. The contract contemplated $2,300.00 for repairs of which none had been paid to Respondent or Alonzo. The Homeowners paid $1,150.00 to a painting contractor to finish the painting contemplated under the contract. Alonzo had been paid $1,125.00 for painting. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15) The contract provided $2,500.00 for all painting required under the contract. Respondent failed to notify the building department that he was no longer responsible for the construction. After the Homeowners terminated the contract due to Respondent's and Alonzo's nonperformance, the Homeowners had to expend a substantial amount of extra money to complete the construction. The evidence is insufficient to determine an exact or approximate amount. Roberta Fox's testimony was conflicting with regard to her understanding as to whether or not the Respondent would continue to supervise the construction after the meeting in the Homeowners' law office on February 3, 1983 when Respondent and Alonzo entered into this agreement. Myron Gold testified that it was his understanding that Respondent would continue to supervise Alonzo after the agreement. However, the Homeowners action in this regard subsequent to February 3, 1983, in making no effort to bring the matter to a "head" and requiring Respondent to supervise the work or terminate the contract and in continuing to deal with Alonzo although Homeowners were aware shortly after February 3, 1983 that Alonzo could not perform without Respondent's supervision and that they knew Respondent was not on the job, tends to show that they were aware or should have been aware that Respondent was no longer involved in the day to day supervision of the construction. Alonzo installed a fireplace pursuant to the contract that the building department determined to be a fire hazard and recommended against its use. The Homeowners applied for and were granted a "owner/builder" permit on September 1, 1983 and requested cancellation of the building permit issued to Respondent which was cancelled on September 6, 1983. They have not received a certificate of occupancy because the building department has not performed the following inspection: electrical final; plumbing final; air conditioning final; roofing final and public works final. The building department would have issued a "stop-work order" had it been aware that Respondent was not supervising the construction and would have required the Homeowners to obtain another licensed building contractor or proceed as a owner/builder. The plans prepared by Frese-Camner Associates that were made a part of the contract by reference were not introduced into evidence with the contract and thus the record is insufficient to determine what was required to meet the specifications of the plans and thereby determine if the specifications had been met. There was a permit issued for the septic tank and drain field which work was started in December, 1982. The construction of the house itself was started in January 1983. The first inspection (foundation) on the house was made by the building department of January 21, 1983.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h)(k)(m), Florida Statutes (1981) and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $500.00 and suspend the Respondent's contracting license for a period of three (3) years, provided, however, that if Respondent submits to the Board competent and substantial evidence of restitution to Myron Gold and Roberta Fox within one (1) year from the date of the final order herein, then the suspension shall be stayed and Respondent placed on probation for the balance of the suspension. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-2529 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. RULINGS ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 except clarified as to the last date on construction site. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact24 but clarified to show correct amount paid under contract as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified to show that extra plastering not under contract was required. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30 but clarified. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32 but clarified to show that the record does not support a figure that approximate $32,000.00. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence even though the Homeowners' testimony supported this fact because the Homeowners' actions with regard to Respondent after February 3, 1983, was to the contrary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. RULINGS ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: No Findings of Fact was submitted by the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Douglas Beason Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George J. Soler, Pro Se 3315 S.W. 96th Avenue Miami, Florida 33165
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s license to practice contracting, license number CGC 060878, based on violations of Subsection 489.129(1), Florida Statutes (2005)1, as charged in the three-count Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this proceeding. Whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes (Count I) by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer; Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (Count II) by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor, and Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (Count III) by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. And, if so, what discipline should be imposed, pursuant to Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are determined: At all times material, Respondent was a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CGC 060878 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB). At all times material, Respondent was the qualifier of Epic Building and Development Corporation, a Florida Corporation, with its principal place of business in the Fort Myers area. On February 22, 2005, Respondent entered into a contract with Edward Dueboay to rebuild a house owned by Dueboay and his wife, located at 22299 Laramorre Avenue, Port Charlotte, Florida, which had been distroyed some months earlier by Hurricane Charlie. The price of the contract was $150,000.00. On or about March 24, 2005, Dueboay gave Respondent a check in the amount of $3,500 payable to Contractors Marketing America, Inc. (CMA, Inc.), for the engineering plans. On May 6, 2005, Dueboay paid Respondent $5,000, as an advance on the contract. Respondent did not obtain the building permit from the Charlotte County Building Department until December 12, 2005, and work on the project did not start until January 2006. Because of the enormous damage caused by the hurricane, contractors in the area were flooded with jobs, and significant shortages in building materials also occurred. On January 13, 2006, Respondent billed Dueboay $11,000.00 for land clearing and filling, $750.00 for permit fees, and $3,200.00 for a temporary electric pole. The bill gave credit for the $5,000.00 Dueboay paid on May 6, 2005, and showed a balance due of $10,000.00. On January 20, 2006, Dueboay paid the above-mentioned invoice, by check to Respondent, in the amount of $10,000.00. Respondent paid $4,600.00 to the sub-contractor who performed the lot clearing and filling, but billed Dueboay $11,000.00. However, the contract provided for a $2,500.00 allowance for clearing and filling, and a $750.00 allowance for permit fees. Section 11.c of the contract also provided that Respondent shall provide and pay for all materials and utilities and all other facilities and services necessary for the proper completion of the work on the project in accordance with the contract documents. To pay for the remainder of the contract, Dueboay negotiated and obtained a loan in the total amount of $153,000.00 from Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union (Credit Union). On March 21, 2006, Dueboay and the Credit Union signed the construction loan agreement. On March 21, 2006, Respondent was paid $18,235.00 by the Credit Union for the pre-cast walls used in the erection of the structure. On May 11, 2006, Respondent finished Phase I of the project. On May 15, 2006, Respondent received $11,350.00 as the first draw by the Credit Union. On June 20, 2006, Respondent finished Phase II of the project. On June 20, 2006, Respondent was paid $26,335.00 as the second draw by the Credit Union. From June 2006 to November 2006, Respondent performed no work on the house under the Dueboay contract. Because the roof was not completed, mold appeared on and in the house. On August 21, 2006, Dueboay paid $109.95 to America’s Best Cleaning and Restoration, Inc., for mold removal. On or before September 13, 2006, Dueboay hired an attorney to clarify billing charges related to lot filling, permit fees and the temporary electric pole, and to prompt Respondent to resume work abandoned since June 2006. Under the Credit Union Loan Agreement, after several extensions, the completion of the Dueboay home should have taken place on or before October 17, 2006. On October 18, 2006, the Loan Agreement extension expired, and Dueboay was required to pay mortgage and interest on the loan, even though construction of the house was not completed. On November 10, 2006, Dueboay’s attorney sent Respondent a third letter advising him that the project was stagnating; that after eighteen months since the signing of the contract, the roof of the house was not yet completed; and that, under the contract, Respondent was obligated to substantially complete all work in a reasonable time after construction had started. On or about December 1, 2006, the building permit expired and had to be renewed. At some point after November 10, 2006, Respondent resumed work and finished Phase III on March 8, 2007, with the exception that some doors were not installed, including the garage door. Respondent submitted a sworn Contractor’s Affidavit stating that all subcontractors had been paid, and that there are no liens against Dueboay’s property. However, Dueboay had to pay Charlotte County Utilities $224.93 on October 29, 2007, and $240.00 to Pest Bear, Inc., on May 7, 2008, to avoid two liens being recorded against his property. From March 8, 2007, until July 2007, Respondent performed no work under the contract. David Allgood, another general contractor, was hired by Respondent to complete some of Respondent’s projects in the Port Charlotte area, including the Dueboay house. However, Dueboay was not informed of this arrangement. There was no contract directly between Dueboay and Allgood. On September 4, 2007, relying on advice from his attorney, Dueboay changed the locks to the house, with the intent to keep Respondent and his employees off his property. Shortly thereafter, employees of general contractor David Allgood broke the front lock and entered the property in September 2007, without Dueboay’s permission. Dueboay, again, following advice from this attorney, called law enforcement to eject Allgood’s employees from his property. Allgood attempted to invoice Dueboay for installing some doors on the house that Respondent had previously paid for, and which Respondent should have installed. However, following advice from his attorney, Dueboay resisted Allgood’s request to pay him for the doors. Respondent was paid a total of $122,246.03 for the Dueboay project, before the contract was cancelled. Respondent did not complete work from Phases IV and V, with the following exceptions: he did some work on the driveway, painted the interior, did some cabinet work, exterior trim and soffit, siding, stucco, and some interior trim. Therefore, Respondent completed, at best, three out of seven operations from Phase IV (interior and exterior paint, interior trim and doors, and exterior trim and soffits) and worked on, but did not complete, stucco and some cabinets. From Phase V, Respondent only worked on the driveway and sidewalks, which had to subsequently be repaired. Dueboay hired Storybook Homes, Inc. (Storybook), to complete work abandoned by Respondent from Phases IV and V. Storybook was hired to complete work as follows: install cabinets and vanities, install ceramic tiles, repair stucco, install custom tub, all electrical and plumbing per code, complete exterior paint, install hardware, sinks and faucets in the baths and showers, complete floors, install all appliances, complete air conditioning and heat, and obtain the certificate of occupancy. The amount of $122,246.03 paid to Respondent at the time when Respondent abandoned the Dueboay project represents 81 percent of the total contract price of $150,000.00. Respondent completed, at best, 75 percent of the job by completing only three out of seven operations of Phase IV and working on some additional operations that needed to be redone, like the driveway, sidewalks and stucco. Due to Respondent’s failure to perform work on time, Dueboay incurred $5,116.42 in additional expenses, as follows: $109.95 on August 21, 2006 (mold removal), $360.00 on November 23, 2006 (legal fees), $175.00 on June 4, 2007 (legal fees), $375.00 on September 4, 2007 (legal fees), $224.93 on October 29, 2007 (to satisfy lien), $668.34 on November 3, 2007 (legal fees), $200.00 on April 4, 2008 (legal fees), $1,151.05 on May 7, 2008 (to correct work performed deficiently by Respondent), $390.00 on May 7, 2008 (to repair driveway), $240.00 on May 7, 2008 (to avoid lien), and $412.00 on May 12, 2008 (to install safe room door that Respondent failed to install). The total investigative costs of this case to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, for Petitioner’s case no. 2005-028129 was $276.18.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board render a Final Order as follows: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. Respondent’s license to practice contracting (CGC 060878) be suspended for a period of three months, followed by a period of probation for two years, upon such conditions as the Board may impose, including the payment of costs and restitution. Requiring Respondent to pay financial restitution to the consumer, Edward Dueboay, in the amount of $5,116.42 for consumer harm suffered due to payment of additional expenses. Requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner’s costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney’s time, in the amount of $276.18. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 2009.
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statues, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Richard M. Golfman, was, at all times material hereto, licensed by the Department as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C032860, and authorized to engage in the practice of general contracting as an individual.1 The Feinstein project (DOAH Case No. 00-0599) On or about October 30, 1998, Respondent entered into a written contract with Norman and Sheila Feinstein to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to enclose and remodel the screened patio, and to build a rock garden, at their home located at 5468 Northwest 20th Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $5,000. At the time, the Feinsteins paid Respondent $1,500 as the initial payment (deposit) under the terms of the contract. The contract Respondent presented and the Feinsteins executed on October 30, 1998, did not include Respondent's license number, nor did it contain a statement concerning consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Following execution of the contract, Respondent made repeated promises to construct the rock garden; however, it was not until November 10, 1998, that Respondent appeared on-site and constructed the rock garden, albeit not to the Feinsteins' satisfaction. Subsequently, Respondent had some high-hat electrical fixture cans and a bundle of furring strips delivered to the home for the patio project but, thereafter, despite repeated requests, refused to perform any work on the project or refund any money to the Feinsteins. The value of the labor and materials Respondent invested in the rock garden, as well as the cost of the building materials (the high-hat fixtures and furring strips) delivered to the job-site, was $250, a sum considerably less than the $1,500 the Feinsteins had entrusted to Respondent under the terms of their agreement. The Burres/Berger project (DOAH Case No. 00-0600) On or about November 23, 1998, Respondent submitted a written proposal to Tanya Burres to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to replace the existing roof on her home located at 7270 Montrico Drive, Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $22,125. The proposal was a one-page preprinted form. In the upper left there appeared, printed immediately following Respondent's handwritten name, the following: THE GOLFMAN GROUP, INC. P.O. Box 811926 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 The proposal did not include Respondent's license number, nor did it contain a statement concerning consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. At the time the proposal was submitted, Tanya Burres was under contract to sell the home to Drs. Glenn Berger and Michelle Fiorillo, husband and wife (the Bergers), and Ms. Burres had agreed to split with the Bergers the cost of a new roof for the home. At the time, Ms. Burres had suggested the Respondent as a contractor to perform the work (because he had previously done satisfactory work for Ms. Burres); however, it was understood that the employment of any contractor was subject to the Bergers' approval. That the Bergers' agreement was required before any such employment would be accepted was clearly conveyed to Respondent. On November 23, 1998, Tanya Burres signed the proposal and gave Respondent a check payable to his order in the sum of $1,106.25, representing her half of the ten percent deposit called for by the proposal. The Bergers, however, declined to accept the proposal, and refused Respondent's request for the balance of the deposit. Rather, the Bergers, having received adverse information from the Department regarding Respondent's record, preferred to employ a different contractor, and Ms. Burres accorded the Bergers a monetary credit at closing (on the purchase of the home) for one-half the cost to re-roof the home. When the Bergers informed Ms. Burres (shortly after she signed the proposal on November 23, 1998) that they would not agree to use Respondent, Ms. Burres attempted to stop payment on her check; however, the check had already been cashed. Thereafter, Ms. Burres attempted on numerous occasions to contact Respondent by telephone and by his pager, but Respondent failed to return any of her calls or messages. To date, Respondent has failed to account for or return Ms. Burres' deposit of $1,106.25. The costs of investigation and prosecution As of February 25, 2000, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totaled $234.85 for DOAH Case No. 00-0599 (the Feinstein project) and $195.65 for DOAH Case No. 00-0600 (the Burres/Berger project.) Previous disciplinary action At hearing, the Department offered proof that, on two prior occasions, Respondent had been subjected to disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the Board). (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) The first occasion is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, dated August 4, 1987, which found Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint (which were not revealed at hearing beyond what may be inferred from the terms of the Final Order), and resolved that Respondent suffer the following penalty: Respondent's licensure is hereby suspended for ten (10) years. Provided, Respondent may obtain termination of said suspension at anytime, without further action by the Board, upon providing the Board's Executive Director with a certified bank check in an amount sufficient to cover and pay a fine of five hundred dollars ($500), and the bad check alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and all service charges in connection therewith, and all other fees accruing as of the date Respondent seeks said termination of supervision. The second occasion Respondent was subjected to disciplinary action is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, dated July 18, 1997, which approved a stipulated settlement of certain complaints then pending before the Board. That Final Order approved the dismissal of a number of counts contained in five Administrative Complaints then pending before the Board and, as to the remaining counts, agreed (without Respondent admitting or denying the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaints) to the following penalty: 3. FINE AND COSTS: Respondent shall pay a fine of Nine Hundred dollars ($900.00) and costs of Eight Hundred fifty One dollars ($851) to the Board within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Final Order. Said payment shall be in the form of a cashier's or certified check and shall be made payable to the "Construction Industry Licensing Board." To assure payment of the fine and costs, it is further ordered that all of Respondent's licensure to practice contracting shall be suspended with the imposition of the suspension being stayed for thirty (30) days. If the ordered fine and costs are paid in compliance with the terms set forth above, the suspension imposed shall not take effect. However, should payment not be timely made, the stay shall be lifted and Respondent's license shall be immediately suspended. Upon payment of the fine and costs in full, the suspension imposed shall be lifted. Respondent apparently satisfied the fines and costs imposed by the foregoing orders. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and which, as a penalty for the violations found, imposes an administrative fine in the total sum of $13,500.00, revokes Respondent's licensure, orders that Respondent pay restitution to Norman and Sheila Feinstein in the sum of $1,250.00 and to Tanya Burres in the sum of $1,106.25, and assesses costs of investigation and prosecution (through February 25, 2000) in the total sum of $430.50 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified general contractor and the holder of license number CG C050853 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Reliable Remodelers, a division of Action Bay Marine Company, Inc., and as such qualifying agent was responsible for all its contracting activities. On March 9, 1993, Joel Broder while representing himself to be vice president of Reliable Remodelers, executed a contract with Louise Rodney and Astrid Lamand wherein Reliable Remodelers agreed to perform certain roofing and carpet work at the residence of Yves and Louise Rodney at 35 N.W. 115 Street, Miami, Florida. The reason Astrid Lamand signed this contract was not established. The work to be done on the Rodney residence was in repair of damages caused by Hurricane Andrew. The costs of these repairs were to be paid by insurance proceeds. The price for this work to be performed by Reliable Remodelers, including materials, was $10,650.00. According to the terms of the contract, $200 was due as a down payment on or about March 9, 1993, and the remainder was due on completion of the work. Ms. Rodney gave Mr. Broder two checks as deposits toward the work to be done. The first was a check in the amount of $200.00 on March 9, 1993, the date the contract was signed. Mr. Broder told Ms. Rodney on March 9, 1993, to call him when her insurance settlement came in so he could come back for an additional check and thereafter begin work. On April 11, 1993, Ms. Rodney advised Mr. Broder by telephone that she had received her insurance settlement. On April 12, 1993, Ms. Rodney paid to Mr. Broder the second check, which was in the amount of $3,000.00. On April 13, 1993, Mr. Broder told the Rodneys that work would begin on the house in three days. Ms. Rodney made both of these checks payable to Joel Broder personally because Mr. Broder instructed her to do so. Mr. Broder assured her that it was acceptable to make these two deposit checks to him personally because of his position as a vice-president of Reliable Remodelers. Mr. Broder indicated that the final check would be made payable to Reliable Remodelers. Reliable Remodelers never began work on the subject contract. No building permit was ever pulled for the project described in the subject contract. A local building department building permit would have been required for beginning work on the roofing portion of the project described in the subject contract. The Rodneys never received a refund of the $3,200.00 paid to Joel Broder. Louise Rodney was justified in believing Mr. Broder was an authorized representative of Reliable Remodelers. Mr. Broder presented a business card and a contract with Reliable Remodelers' name and address and Respondent's general contractor's license number printed on the contract. Mr. Broder was employed by Reliable Remodelers and had the authority to negotiate contracts on its behalf with the public. Richard Levin, a corporate officer of Reliable Remodelers at the time of the Rodney contract, knew that Mr. Broder was representing Reliable Remodelers in a contract sales capacity at the time of the Rodney contract. Between April 13, 1993, and the end of June 1993 Louise Rodney and her husband, Yves Rodney, repeatedly called Mr. Broder at Reliable Remodelers, but were never able to get Mr. Broder or Reliable Remodelers to start work. When Mr. or Ms. Rodney called the number provided by Mr. Broder, he or she would sometimes get Mr. Broder, sometimes get an answering machine, and sometimes get a lady who answered the phone "Reliable Remodelers." Mr. Broder repeatedly made excuses to the Rodneys about why the job did not begin. Sometime around the end of June or early July, Ms. Rodney called Mr. Broder and demanded a return of her money. Mr. Broder told Ms. Rodney that he could not refund the money until the end of July because he never wrote checks until the middle of the month. Mr. Broder did promise to return the money to Louise Rodney by the end of July 1993. In July 1993, Ms. Rodney filed a complaint with the Metro Dade Building and Zoning Department against Reliable Remodelers and Joel Broder. On July 23, 1993, Ms. Rodney filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation against Joel Broder and Reliable Remodelers. In late August or early September 1993, Mr. Broder contacted Ms. Rodney by telephone about the refund. This telephone contact was after a representative from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation had contacted Mr. Broder about Ms. Rodney's complaint. In that telephone conversation Mr. Broder discussed the possibility of refunding to Ms. Rodney her deposit, but he insisted on keeping $200.00 of the $3,200.00. On or about September 10, 1993, the Respondent executed and sent Louise Rodney a letter on Reliable Remodelers letterhead. A copy of the letter was sent to the Department of Professional Regulation. This letter provided, in part, as follows: You have expressed a desire to be released from our contract dated March 9, 1993, for work in the amount of $10,650.00. We want to make it clear that we have been pro- hibited from fulfilling the terms of our contract by unreasonable and impractical demands by you, the Homeowners, as to how the work should proceed, i.e., demanding that roof tiles be loaded on the roof before it is hot mopped. 1/ Although your request at this time is not in accordance with the cancellation terms of our contract, we feel it would be in the best interest of all parties to grant your request. We do however, require written notification of your intent to cancel. Notarized signatures on this document will suffice. Upon receipt of this executed document we will initiate refund procedures. Your deposit of $3,200.00 will be returned to you within thirty (30) days. This allows us time to recoup binders issued for your job. Of course we have incurred some expenses in the set up for performing our contractual obligation. These, in excess of $400.00, we will overlook. Please endorse and have notarized the statement below and return this document to us promptly. The letter of September 10, 1993, contained a release clause that Ms. Rodney and Mr. Astride were to sign and have notarized before any refund was to be forthcoming. Sometime just after September 13, 1994, in the evening, three men came to the Rodney home with a copy of the letter signed by the Respondent on September 10, 1993. One of these three men was Jules Lindsor, a corporate officer of Reliable Remodelers. Mr. Lindsor falsely identified himself to the Rodneys as being Gary S. Sachs. These three men were trying to procure the Rodneys' signature on a release from the subject contract. The Rodneys refused to sign the release because there was no refund present and because they wanted to consult a lawyer before signing. Sometime after September 13, 1993, the Rodneys executed a release and mailed it to Reliable Remodelers. At the time of entering the contract with Reliable Remodelers the Rodney home was leaking from damage caused by Hurricane Andrew. The leaks were finally repaired between April and June 1994 by persons other than Reliable Remodelers. Respondent and Reliable Remodelers ratified the contract that Mr. Broder executed on its behalf. There was no evidence that Respondent or Reliable Remodelers ever repudiated the contract as a Reliable Remodelers contract, that there was any effort to perform the contract, or that there was a tender of a refund of the $3,200.00 paid by Louise Rodney. There was no evidence that Reliable Remodelers had any justifiable excuse for its failure to perform any work pursuant to its contract with Ms. Rodney and Mr. Astride.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $3,500.00 to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, pay restitution to Louise Rodney in the amount of $3,200, and pay costs incurred in the prosecution of this proceeding in the amount to be determined by the Petitioner. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of November 1994. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 14th day of November 1994.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Roger L. Irven, is a certified general contractor holding license number CG C027873. At all time material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor, doing business as Irven Construction Company. DOAH CASE NUMBER 85-0714 On about June 25, 1978, Respondent pled guilty and was adjudged guilty of the felony offense of wanton endangerment in the Circuit Court of Oldham County, Kentucky. On July 25, 1978, the Respondent was sentenced to three (3) years probation by the Oldham County Circuit Court. The Respondent was represented by counsel. Respondent was placed on probation with certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the Respondent receive treatment in the infirmary for his epileptic condition. The Court ordered that the Respondent be hospitalized for four (4) months in the prison infirmary. The Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board received applications from the Respondent to take the certified contractor's examination on December 16, 1982, April 1, 1983, August 17, 1983 and December 7, 1983. On each application, Respondent answered in the negative indicating that he had never been convicted of any offenses in this state, or elsewhere, other than a traffic violation. Respondent took the Certified Contractor's Examination four (4) times. Respondent passed the examination on the fourth attempt. On March 14, 1984, Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor. DOAH CASE NUMBER 85-3393 On November 1, 1984, the Respondent contracted with Kathy and Larry Evans, 5746 Wingate Drive, Orlando, Florida, to remodel their home at a cost of $6,700.00. On November 5, 1984, the Evans' paid Irven Construction $3,350.00 towards the contract price. The specifications for the remodeling work were prepared by Irven Construction. Mr. Evans was told by the salesman for Irven Construction that the remodeling would commence within fifteen (15) days of signing the contract and be completed within forty-five (45) days of the commencement, which amounted to sixty (60) days for total completion after signing the contract. No work was performed on the Evans project until December 19 or 20, 1984, when the windows were put in. The air conditioning duct work and heating elements were put in and the old oil furnace was removed. Respondent informed the Evanses that no work was done before this because he was ill. On January 3, 1985 Irven Construction entered into a contract with Central Air, Heating and Cooling, Inc. to perform air conditioning and heating work on the Evans' home at a cost of $3,195. A few days after entering into the contract, Central Air & Heating completed only the rough-in of the contracted work. The rough-in consisted of the installation of the heating and air conditioning ducts and the furnace installation, but not the installation of the condensing unit. Central Air & Heating was given cheeks for $1,278 by Irven Construction for the rough-in work it had completed. The checks were deposited by Central Air & Heating in its bank account, but were returned because insufficient funds were on deposit to cover them. Central Air & Heating notified Irven Construction about the returned checks; the Respondent stated that he would submit another check, but failed to do so. Because it was not paid by Irven Construction, Central Air & Heating sent a Notice to Owner to the Evanses. The Evanses also received a Notice to Owner from Window Works, Inc. for custom windows which had been ordered by Irven Construction, but never paid for. Window Works filed a lien for $600 against the Evans t property due to it not being paid for the custom windows. Subsequently, the Evanses were sued in civil court by Window Works for the amount owed under the lien. The Evanses were required to pay Window Works the amount owed plus other costs, totaling $1,800. Window Works was not paid because Respondent gave the money to one of his salesmen to buy the windows. The salesman, Nr. Renfuller, kept the money and put the windows on credit. At the time that Respondent wrote the check to Central Air & Heating, Respondent thought that there was enough money in his account to cover it. Nothing was done on the Evans project in accordance with the contract after the rough-in by Central Air & Heating. At the time of the cessation of the work, the Evans job was 60% complete and the value of the work completed was approximately $3,400. On December 12, 1984, Respondent contracted with Irving Bernstein, 1018 Matchlock Drive, Orlando, Florida, to build an enclosed porch for a price of $2,000. The Bernsteins discussed the completion date of the contract with the Respondent and his brother, Richard Irven. Bernstein was told that the remodeling would commence three (3) days after Irven Construction obtained the permit for the work and that the work would be completed within seven (7) days after that. Bernstein paid Irven $100 at the time of signing the contract. Before signing the contract, Respondent informed Bernstein that several sub-contractors were available to start the remodeling, and, that construction could start as soon as the contract was signed. After signing the contract, no one immediately appeared from Irven Construction to perform the remodeling. Bernstein made several calls to Respondent and left several messages, seeking to obtain information as to when someone was coming to begin the remodeling work. When Bernstein spoke with the Respondent, the Respondent informed him that he had to obtain three (3) bids. On January 2, 1985, Bernstein paid Irven Construction $975.00, making his total payment $1,075. Respondent obtained the building permit for the Bernstein project on January 9, 1985. At the end of January, 1985, Respondent and his son arrived at the Bernstein residence to start the remodeling job. Respondent and his son worked approximately three (3) hours that day, putting in 2 x 4's around the sides. The following day, Respondent's brother and son worked on the project for approximately three (3) hours, removing some tiles off of the roof and the side molding from the house. When they left they stated that they would return the following Monday: however, no one came that Monday. That Monday morning, Bernstein called Irven Construction and spoke with Respondent's brother, Richard Irven. Respondent's brother informed Bernstein that Respondent had a bad back and that completion of the job would be delayed. Bernstein requested the return of his money, but no money was ever returned by Irven Construction. On February 21, 1984, Respondent wrote a letter to Bernstein indicating that he wanted off of the job since it appeared to him that Bernstein did not want him to finish. At the time of the cessation of work by Irven Construction, appoximately 50% of the work had en completed. Both Respondent and Bernstein believed that there was a breach of contract by the other. Bernstein contracted with another contractor, Mark Spires Construction Company, to perform the remodeling work. Bernstein's contract with Mark Spires involved more work than the contract with Respondent. Bernstein's contract with Respondent was for a simple porch close-in with no substantial roofing work. Spires Construction Company re-leveled the beams and reconstructed the 2 x 4's of the framework. To effectuate the two (2) walls envisioned by the contract of Respondent, the existing beams were to be utilized. The only thing that Respondent had to do was to tie into the existing house. The Respondent took off the top row of tiles on the roof so he could tie it in. The only improvements Respondent made to the existing roof was "ducking and drying-in". On January 14, 1985, Sam Ross entered into a contract with Irven Construction, to remodel his home's porch, at a cost of $1,550. Ross chose Irven Construction because Irven Construction had contracted to remodel the porch of his neighbor, Nr. Bernstein, and the cost of the Bernstein job sounded reasonable. Ross was informed by Irven Construction that they would be working on both his job and Bernstein's job at the same time. At the time of signing the contract, Ross paid Respondent $775. Ross discussed the commencement and completion of the project with Respondent's brother, Richard Irven. Ross was told that the work would commence within ten (10) days of the signing of the contract and would take about five (5) days thereafter for total completion. Irven Construction delivered some supplies to his home at the same time supplies were delivered to the Bernstein project site. Because commencement of work on the project was slow, Ross called Irven Construction numerous times concerning the work on his home. Respondent eventually assigned an individual named Nark Withlow to perform work on the Ross project. However, Ross did not want Withlow to work on the job because Ross felt that a certified carpenter was needed; Mark Withlow was qualified as a remodeler. Thereafter, Ross refused to allow anyone from Irven Construction to work on his home because of his dissatisfaction with Mark Withlow's assignment to his job and because he discovered the problems that Bernstein and Respondent were having. Ross requested the return of his money from Respondent. Respondent offered, by letter dated February 21, 1985, to refund $513. Ross did not respond to Respondent's letter because he wanted a full refund and felt that Respondent's offer was "ridiculous." Ross later contracted with Mark Spires Construction to perform the remodeling work, which was eventually completed. The materials left at the-project site were used by Mark Spires Construction. The value of the goods and materials which were delivered to and remained at the Ross project was between $50 and $80.00. Ross sued Irven Construction in civil court and obtained a judgment for the full amount he paid Respondent, plus court costs. Respondent was involved in an automobile accident on July 3, 1984. As a result of the accident, Respondent suffered severe head, shoulder and back injuries. In November of 1984, Respondent was hospitalized with a "trimmed disc"; in January, 1985, Respondent briefly returned to active participation in the business but reinjured his back while working on the Bernstein project. After the July 1984 accident Respondent provided little or no control or supervision to his business and was bed-ridden frequently from July 1984 to March, 1985. In addition, the automobile accident caused Respondent's seizures to return. Respondent has suffered from a seizure disorder, i.e. epilepsy, since 1975. Respondent was seizure free from 1979 to 1983. The type of seizure that the Respondent suffers from affects his memory and decision making and may last for several days following a seizure activity. Since the accident in July, 1984, Respondent has been taking medication for his back pain, i.e. Darvocet, and medication for his seizures, i.e. Tegretol, 200 mg. From August 29, 1984 to March, 1985, Respondent was having heavy seizure activity and frequented the Epileptic Foundation of Orlando for treatment at least once a month or every six weeks. He was advised by the Foundation to always take his medication and to be with someone. During the same period, he was treated by a Dr. Litchfield, a chiropractor, at least two to three times a week. The Respondent's ability to give effective directions or make decisions was impaired due to his physical problems from August 1984 to March 1985. In August or September, 1984, Davis Chaffee began working with Respondent as a salesman. After about ten (10) days to two (2) weeks as a salesman, Respondent allowed Chaffee to run the business due to the Respondent being bedridden most of the time and not being able to function as a result of the accident of July, 1984. Davis Chaffee had no construction background; his experience was in sales and business administration. To assist Chaffee in running the business, Respondent prepared an outline which included a basic scale for bids. James NcCall served as the superintendent for Irven Construction. Respondent felt that NcCall was competent to be superintendent as long as he was supervised by Respondent. After Respondent's accident of July, 1984, McCall handled all the construction aspects of the business including overall supervision of the project. McCall continued as the superintendent on the jobs, handled bids and proposals and dealt with the prints, materials and subcontractors for all the jobs. Despite Respondent's reservations about McCall's abilities, McCall was allowed to literally "run the business" because of Respondent's physical problems. Davis Chaffee had the authority to approve contracts and prepare bids without consulting McCall. Chaffee was fired by Respondent in December, 1984. DOAH CASE NUMBER 85-4216 On September 27, 1984 Respondent contracted with Richard Loman to build an addition to Loman's residence at 783 Formosa Drive, Winter Park, Florida at a cost of approximately $20,000. Loman and Respondent discussed the commencement and completion date of the remodeling and Loman was told that the project would be completed within 45 days from approval of the plans and the signing of the contract. Loman paid Irven Construction $10,000 as a deposit, $500.00 on September 24, 1984 and $9,500 on October 2, 1984. In addition, Irven Construction received a contractor's draw of $3,333 on October 23, 1984 and $3,333 on November 5, 1984. As of November 5, 1984, the drywall, insulation, fixtures, toilet, vanity, heat and air, and the hot water heater remained to be completed. On January 16, 1985, the contract price was increased another $1,000 for additional electrical work which was requested by Loman. The work on the remodeling was progressing slowly and Loman repeatedly called Respondent to get someone out to complete the remodeling. Respondent repeatedly promised to send someone to complete the work. In February, 1985, a drywall person came out and completed the drywall. Loman received a letter dated February 1, 1985 from the Respondent. The letter indicated, among other things, that the Respondent was physically ill but had all intentions of complying with the contract and completing the remodeling and that he had a contractor who would contact Loman to arrange to complete the remodeling. Since the drywall person completed his work in February, 1985, no one has gone to the Loman's residence to complete the remodeling. No contractor has contacted Loman to arrange for the completion of the project and no money has been returned to Loman. At the time Irven Construction stopped work- on the Loman project, it was about 90% complete. Loman completed the job himself on June 1, 1985. Loman received, by certified mail, liens from Tillman's Plumbing and Jackson Drywall Service for the remodeling work done on his home under the contract with Respondent. Tillman's lien was $360 and Jackson Drywall's lien was $1,350. DOAH CASE NUMBER 85-4246 On August 29, 1985, Irven Construction entered into a contract with Stephen Dubin and his wife to remodel their family/living room at a cost of $7,200. In accordance with the modified specifications, electrical lights and an electrical fan were installed. James McCall, Respondent's superintendent completed most, if not all, of the electrical work. The project was completed and Irven Construction was paid in full. The Seminole County Building Department's records show that a building permit for the Dubin project was applied for, approved, and assigned a permit number, but never issued because it was not picked up. The Building Department's records also showed that no electrical permit was applied for. Respondent was required by the Seminole County Building Code to obtain a building permit before commencing the remodeling. After a building permit is issued, periodic inspections of the project site are required. Without a building permit, there are no inspections by the Building Department. During this period, the Respondent was having personal problems with the employee that was responsible for picking up the permit. The Respondent was unaware that the employee had failed to properly perform his duties by picking up the permit. Respondent was ill during this period and had very little input into the Dubin project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED THAT: Respondent's license be suspended for a period of four (4) years, with the condition that he may be eligible to apply to the Board for reinstatement after a period of two (2) years and upon a showing satisfactory to the Board that his financial affairs are in good and sound condition and that he is physically capable of carrying on a contractor's business. Further, for the purposes of such an application for reinstatement, Respondent shall be required to appear before the Board for such questions as the Board feels appropriate and shall supply the Board with such documents as the Board feels necessary. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Errol H. Powell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stuart G. Green, Esquire 712 East Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801-2994 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Matters not contained therein are rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as legal argument. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37 and 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 50. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Matters not contained therein are rejected as not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Partially adopted in Findings of' Fact 31 and 32. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34.I Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. 111. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. 114. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rulings on Proposed Findings of fact submitted by the Respondent (None submitted).
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent James W. Geary presently holds certified general contractor's license number CG C005775. Respondent Geary apparently entered into a contract with Phillip Smith to add a screened porch to the Smith residence. Neither the contract nor the testimony of Mr. Smith were made available to the undersigned Hearing Officer. Respondent had difficulty obtaining a roofer and completion of the project was therefore delayed. During the interim, the interior of the Smith's living room suffered water damage. After receiving a complaint from the Smiths, Mr. Robert Jahn, Chief Building Official for the City of Tamarac, personally inspected the Smith project. He found that the water damage was caused by the uncompleted work of respondent and certain violations of the Southern Florida Building Code. Jahn did not know how long the project had not been worked on, but Smith told him he had tried for about one month to get respondent to return to correct the situation. Respondent testified that when he sent a man to the Smith residence to install the roof columns, Smith chased the man off the job. Upon the delivery of certain supplies for his projects, respondent Geary, d/b/a First Triangle Corporation, wrote two checks in the total amount of $391.41 payable to Rinker Materials. (Exhibit 1) These checks were offered for payment by Rinker, and were returned due to insufficient funds. The former credit manager of Rinker Materials did not know whether anyone from Rinker had contacted respondent about the checks. Respondent testified that no one from Rinker had informed him that the checks were dishonored. However, respondent did receive notice from his bank that the checks had been returned. He was changing banks about the same time and felt that the bank had made mistakes in the past. He felt that the checks were good when issued and he therefore did not put much reliance upon the notices received from the bank. Respondent testified that he is ready, willing and able to honor the checks written to Rinker Materials. Respondent Geary apparently entered into a contract with Richard Decker for the addition of a five by eleven foot bathroom to the Decker's residence. Neither the contract, the plans or specifications nor the testimony of Mr. Decker were offered into evidence at the Hearing. Respondent felt there were no deviations between the finished product and the job specifications, and that, even if there had been, there was no way he could put a five foot vanity into the project without violating the applicable building code. The field investigator for petitioner's District No. 10 found deviations from the plans with regard to the size of the vanity, the bathroom door and the illumination. He found that the Deckers had not indicated their approval of such deviations by placing their initials on the plans or specification. The South Florida Building Code (302.2(b)) provides that when the cost of a job is over $5,000.00, the permit applicant must present plans signed and sealed by a registered architect or engineer. A larger permit fee is also required for jobs costing over $5,000.00. On or about April 9, 1976, respondent Geary applied to the City of Tamarac for two building permits. (Exhibit 2). While blueprints were submitted, no plans signed and sealed by a registered architect Or engineer were submitted. From the square footages contained on the right hand column of the application, Chief Building Official Jahn determined that the value of the two projects were $7,300.00 and $6,620.00. The contract prices for these projects were approximately $8,000.00 and $10,000.00. There was no conclusive testimony as to who supplied the footage information on these applications, It was respondent's opinion that the actual costs of these projects did not exceed $5,000.00. Respondent apparently entered into a contract with Daniel Salzman for some project, and then entered into a second contract for the construction and installation of a fence and a trellis. For this second project, respondent received a deposit of $825.00. The first job was never completed by respondent and respondent never began work on the fence and trellis project. Respondent admitted that some $500.00 was due Mr. Salzman as a refund for the second project. He testified that he instructed Mr. Salzman to have the work on the first project completed by someone else and then to send respondent the bill for the same. Respondent has not heard from Salzman regarding this matter. By letter dated November 20, 1976, Chief Building Official Jahn notified respondent that "No further building permits [would] be issued to First Triangle Builders with you as their qualifier because of numerous complaints and unfinished projects." As indicated in the Introduction, petitioner filed an administrative complaint against respondent seeking to revoke his license for violations of certain ordinances and Florida Statutes S468.112(2). The cause was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the appointment of a Hearing Officer, and the undersigned was designated to conduct the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, as well as the seriousness of the offenses of which respondent has been found guilty, It Is recommended that respondent's certified general contractor's license number CG C005775 be revoked. Respectfully submitted and entered this 18th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (488-9675) Area Code 904 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. James W. Geary 4370 Northwest 32nd Court Lauderdale Lakes, Florida Wallace Norman Construction Industry Licensing Board 305 South Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 JacksonvIlle, Florida 32211
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered general contractor, having been issued license number RG 0012013. On October 3, 1980, the Respondent, d/b/a Five Ray Enterprises, Inc., entered into a contract with David and Laytha Danley to construct a residence near Brooksville, Florida, for the sum of $61,621.00. This contract was a construction management type of agreement in which the Respondent was to be paid a fee for his services. The Respondent commenced construction, and completed between 85 percent and 95 percent of the project before discontinuing an active role in the work during June of 1981. The Respondent's base of operations was in Winter Park, nearly 100 miles from the construction site, and he was having some personal problems. Therefore, the Respondent agreed with Al Nickola to have Nickola supervise the completion of construction, which involved some painting, grading, finish electrical work and the installation of appliances. The Respondent knew that Al Nickola was unlicensed as a contractor when he entered into the agreement with Nickola to complete the construction. Before he discontinued his work on the project, the Respondent received all the inspections except for the Certificate of Occupancy. His agreement with Nickola was to complete the work which was left and to obtain the Certificate of Occupancy. The Respondent did not properly qualify Five Ray Enterprises, Inc., under which name he contracted to build the residence for the Danleys. On September 9, 1981, the Citrus County Hoard of Examiners revoked the Respondent's license for abandonment of the Danley construction project. However, the minutes of the Board meeting at which this action took place, do not reflect whether or not a full examination was made of all the facts. They simply indicate that the Respondent did not appear at the meeting as requested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Roland C. Ray, be found guilty of one violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and one violation of Section 489.119(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, and that he be assessed an administrative fine of $250 on each charge for a total fine of $500. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and that his license be suspended until such time as the Respondent has obtained reinstatement of his Citrus County license. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 11th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Roland C. Ray 305 North Pennsylvania Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, DPR Case No. 0018288 DOAH Case No. 82-2395 ROLAND C. RAY RG 0012013 Post Office Box 5877 Orlando, Florida 32855 Respondent. /
