The Issue Whether the Respondent was validly disciplined by a local government, which causes the Respondent to be in violation of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1985). Whether the Respondent failed to perform the contracting job alleged in the Administrative Complaint in a reasonably timely manner, or abandoned the job, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), (k), Florida Statutes (1985). Whether the Respondent exhibited financial mismanagement, misconduct or diversion, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(h), (m), Florida Statutes (1985). Whether the Respondent committed gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct in connection with the job alleged in the Administrative Complaint, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1985).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent, Charles R. Schelah was licensed as a certified general contractor in Florida, and held license number CG C016841. Mr. Schelah was the qualifying agent for Schelah Construction, Inc. On March 11, 1986, Schelah Construction, Inc., entered into a contract with Moner F. Green and Karen L. Green to construct a residence in Prairie Creek Park, Charlotte County, Florida A copy of the contract is Petitioner's Exhibit Pursuant to the written agreement, construction would occur as per the signed construction drawings. The total contract price was to be $102,775.00. This quote was contingent upon a construction start on or before March 15, 1986. After that date, increases in supply and labor costs would be borne by the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Green. The contract further stated that there is no specific completion date, that an expected completion date was August 30, 1986. Construction began on the residence on April 4, 1986. Three revisions of the drawings were completed by the owner before a building permit was requested by the Respondent Schelah. Throughout the progress of construction, major and minor revisions were made by the owners. Many of these revisions delayed construction as the Respondent was required to obtain new special order materials and retrofit many of the changes into the existing construction phase. The Respondent recollected that thirty-five revisions were made to the construction plans by the owners during various phases of construction. In September 1986, the owners began to frequently telephone the Respondent in order to urge him to quickly complete the project as the owners were now required to pay the savings and loan association mortgage installments. The Respondent did not return the telephone calls. A letter was sent to the Respondent by the owners' attorney on November 3, 1986, notifying him that he needed to resume his responsibilities at the construction site. The Respondent did not reply to this letter. On November 7, 1986, the Respondent was removed as contractor of record by the owners. All but the final draw from the savings and loan had been given to the Respondent before his removal. After the Respondent was removed from the project, the owners were given notice of the following liens: $2,750.55 to Pre-Hung Doors of Florida for supplies delivered in August 1986; $700.00 to Paul Hartt Plastering and Stucco, Inc. for work completed in September 1986. The work completed by both subcontractors was performed during the Respondent's term as the prime contractor on the project. These two contractors were never paid by the Respondent out of draws received by him for that purpose through October 1986. These subcontractors, as well as others, testified that they were unable to communicate with Respondent after September 1986. The final draw from the savings and loan in the amount of $19,618.97, was used by the owners to complete the project themselves. The proof of payment submitted by the owner, Mr. Green, at hearing for completion under the direct contract was $6,149.14, in Respondent's Exhibit 14. The residence was completed by the owners in December 1986. Mr. Green, the owner, filed a complaint with the Charlotte County Building Board on October 29, 1986, alleging that the Respondent refused to call him, and was dragging completion of the job for unknown reasons hearing was held on February 19, 1987. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Charlotte County Building board suspended the permitting privileges of Schelah Construction, Inc., until such time as all jobs in progress were finished. During the administrative hearing, the Respondent admitted that a twenty-one day delay on the Green project occurred when he was unable to acquire a sheetrock hanger who would go to the hinterlands (Prairie Creek Park) where the residence was being built. He contends however, that the additional time delays were a result of changes in supply orders due to the changes made by the owners, and the requirement that subcontractors be rescheduled to accommodate these changes. Petitioner's experts in construction practices within Florida, Mr. Bernard Verse and Mr. Stanley Ink, were unable to render an opinion that the Green Construction project had been abandoned by Respondent Schelah, or that there had been a diversion of funds. However, Mr. Ink did render an opinion that the project was not completed in a reasonably timely manner, that the Respondent is guilty of financial mismanagement, and that the Respondent committed gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct on the job in that the Respondent did not use due diligence in completing the job, staying on the job, and paying the subcontractors as the contractor should. Mr. Verse opined that the Respondent committed financial mismanagement and gross negligence in the practice of contracting. It was gross negligence not to maintain contact with clients. The Respondent's own expert in construction practices in the Punta Gorda area, Mr. Larry Deirmeyer, noted that it is difficult to acquire unscheduled building supplies in the Punta Gorda area if a contractor runs a small construction company because the supply houses are in Fort Myers, where rapid growth is occurring. In addition, it is difficult to get subcontractors to work on construction in areas like Prairie Creek Park, which is remote from the developed areas of Charlotte County. After Mr. Deirmeyer was admitted as an expert in construction practices, the Hearing Officer learned that he had built a custom home for the owner Moner Frank Green in 1980. Mr. Green's removal of Mr. Deirmeyer's company from the construction project during the last draw of that project, and his continuous changes in those plans were not considered by the Hearing Officer in this case except for the purpose of weighing Mr. Deirmeyer's independence as an expert witness. Another expert witness in construction practices presented by the Respondent was James Anderson, a state certified contractor from the Port Charlotte area. Mr. Anderson acknowledged the local builder supply problem and rendered the opinion that nine months was a reasonable period of time in which to complete the Green project, based upon the construction plans, the change orders, and the travel required to the project, which is not in the immediate Port Charlotte area. The Respondent Schelah did not maintain communication with the owners regarding the progress of the project, even though he was telephoned repeatedly and received written communication from the Green's attorney. This failure to maintain communication resulted in the Respondent's dismissal from the project. The County's Building Director's requests for communication were also refused by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found not guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, as alleged in paragraph five of the administrative complaint. That the Respondent be found not guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(m) and (k), Florida Statutes, as alleged in paragraph six of the administrative complaint. That the Respondent be found not guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in paragraph seven of the administrative complaint. That the Respondent be found guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in paragraph ten of the administrative complaint in regard to misconduct by the Respondent on the Green project. That the penalties assessed against the Respondent not include an aggravation of penalties under Rule 21E-17.002, Florida Administrative Code, and that the Respondent pay a fine of $750.00, as set forth in Rule 21E-17.001(5), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 9th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-3442 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #1. Rejected as to location of project. The rest is accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #9 and #10. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #13 and #11. Rejected. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #3 and #8. Accepted. See HO #7. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3 and #4. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #7. 9. Accepted. See HO #9, #10, #11, #12 and #13. 10. Rejected. Irrelevant to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 John Charles Heekin, Esquire 21202 Olean Boulevard, Suite C-2 Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Fred Seely, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Respondent abandoned a construction job, and whether Respondent failed to include a statement of consumer's rights in a contract; if so, whether (and what) discipline should be imposed against Respondent's general contractor's license.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was a Florida-licensed general contractor, holding license number CGC 1509917. At all times material to the instant case, IGK held a certificate of authority authorizing it to engage in contracting in Florida through a qualifying agent. Respondent was the licensed primary qualifying agent for IGK. On or about December 20, 2007, Respondent entered into a contract to renovate Kevin Barrington's residence, located at 1315 Lenox Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. The written contract did not contain a statement explaining a consumer's rights under the Florida Homeowners Construction Recovery Fund, as then required by section 489.1425. At hearing, Respondent produced a copy of a statement that explained a consumer's rights under the Florida Homeowners Construction Recovery Fund, and testified that he had attached this statement to the written contract. The statement produced by Respondent at hearing was dated December 24, 2011, four days after the contract was executed, and signed only by Respondent. Barrington testified that he never received the statement. The undersigned finds Barrington's testimony credible, and finds that the statement was not contained in the written contract as required by statute. Respondent has never been disciplined for a violation of section 489.1425. The initial contract price for the residential renovation totaled approximately $114,320.00. Several change orders increased the final contract price to approximately $148,603.25. On December 20, 2007, Barrington paid Respondent an initial payment of $46,968.00. Respondent began work on the renovation project in January, 2008. Barrington rented an apartment while the home was under construction. Between December, 2007, and June, 2008, Barrington made several payments to Respondent. By June, 2008, Respondent had received approximately $155,505.81, which was more than the original contract price, and more than the amount agreed to with the additional change orders. By August, 2008, Respondent was struggling financially. IGK experienced a significant decline in business and was forced to lay off employees. On August 23, 2008, Barrington sent Respondent an e-mail, stating, in part: I wanted to summarize our meeting yesterday. I appreciated your honesty, and I believe we came to a resolution that satisfies both our objectives; remodel 1315 Lenox Avenue with high quality standards in a timely manner. Due to unforeseen market conditions, we are not able to continue work within the confines of the existing contract dated 12/20/2007 between IGK and Kenneth Barrington. Therefore, we agreed to the following course of action. . . . If the stated objectives are completed on August 29th to Kenneth Barrington's satisfaction, we decided to terminate the existing contract and have my legal team draft a new contract between IGK and Ken Barrington that outlines the remaining scope of services and payment plan. The payment plan will be arranged as a loan between IGK and Ken Barrington where Ken Barrington will act as Lender and IGK as Borrower, IGK will be responsible to perform the duties outlined in the scope of services and payback monies at a specified date. Loan payments distributed to IGK are intended solely for the purpose of paying for the labor and materials used at 1315 Lenox Ave. On September 17, 2008, Respondent emailed Barrington, stating, in pertinent part: As discussed many times, I am trying to do the right thing and complete your project. However as stated before we are not in complete projects (sic) that were underbid last year. You are well aware that we came in below everyone else. At the time business was good and we could afford to work on a very low mark up. I tried...however and unfortunately the business environment has change (sic) and we can not (sic) do it any longer!!! . . . As it stands, for us to complete the project as mentioned above, we will have to receive a payment in the amount of $20,000.00. You may of course decide to hire to have some one (sic) else finish the project, by (sic) I believe your cost will be in excess of $40-$50k. By September, 2008, approximately 60 percent of the renovation project had been completed. On September 23, 2008, Respondent emailed Barrington stating, in part: Good morning Ken, We are still awaiting your decision in regards to which way your [sic] ant [sic] to go with your project. I do understand and per your advise [sic], that you are trying to hire other contractors to finish your project. However, if you decide to take/hire another contractor, you must apply for a change of contractors [sic]to, either [sic] another contractor or to yourself as a owner/contractor. No one, including yourself can do work, under our permits and/or call for inspections!!! Please refrain from trying to hire my employees to do unlicensed side jobs, they will not, and if they do they lose their jobs and/or be liable for prosecution by the state/county for working without a license and permit. Respondent, having indicated to Barrington that he needed more money to complete the project, and expressing a willingness to complete the renovation project, was clearly awaiting Barrington's decision as to the renegotiation of the contract. Barrington began to interview other contractors in October, 2008. On October 10, 2008, Barrington sent Respondent Change of Contractor forms to sign and have notarized. On October 14, 2008, Respondent signed the forms and had them notarized. Also on October 14, 2008, Barrington sent Respondent a letter, stating, in pertinent part: I, Ken Barrington, property owner of 1315 Lenox Ave [sic], Miami Beach, FL 33139, am notifying you that your services are hereby terminated from our project/permit #s: B08014536, B0801910, B0804552, BE080944, BE082572, BMS0801808. You are being terminated because: You have acknowledged that you are no longer capable of completing the project according to our agreed upon contract. You are no longer authorized to enter my property. On or about November 11, 2008, Barrington entered into a contract with a new contractor, Strategic Engineering, to complete the renovation project. The renovation project was complete by July, 2009, when Barrington was able to move into his home. Respondent and Barrington began to communicate again around this same time. Respondent informed Barrington that Respondent could return to work on the home, but that IGK was filing for bankruptcy. Respondent suggested that a Mutual Release be executed. On September 23, 2009, Barrington and IGK entered into a Mutual Release, intended to effect the elimination of any obligations by either party. Respondent never expressed any intention to abandon the project; rather, Barrington terminated Respondent shortly after Respondent expressed a willingness to complete the project despite his financial difficulties. During the time when Respondent was awaiting Barrington's decision as to the offer to renegotiate the contract price, Barrington elected to terminate Respondent, and did so. Barrington also forbade Respondent from entering the property. Thus, Respondent's separation from the project was caused by Barrington's actions, not by his own volition.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order: (1) dismissing Counts Two and Three of the Administrative Complaint; (2) finding Respondent guilty of violating section 489.129(1)(i), by failing to comply with section 489.1425, Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; (3) fining him $250.00 for having committed this violation; and (4) ordering him to reimburse the Department for investigative and prosecutorial costs related to this violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA ENCISO VARN 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 10th day of November, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting by pulling permits for the unlicensed contractor; whether Respondent failed to qualify a firm for whom he was acting as licensed contractor; whether Respondent acted in the capacity of a contractor other than in his own name; and, whether Respondent violated local building codes as alleged in Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed 6-30-89, and Administrative Complaint filed 7-26-89.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Fred S. Petersen was licensed as a general contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (FCILB) and issued License Nos. CG C023928 and CB CA23929 (Exhibit 1). Neither American Weatherall Industries Inc. (AWI), Mel C. Wyatt, nor Steven C. Wyatt were licensed as contractors by the FCILB (Exhibit 2). Prior to mid-August 1987, Kirk Evenstad was the qualifying general contractor for AWI. By letter dated August 20, 1987, AWI proclaimed Kirk Evenstad to be no longer working for AWI because of mismanagement (Exhibit 3). Mel Wyatt, President of AWI, testified that Everstad had stolen between $30,000 and $50,000 of materials from AWI, leaving AWI in a precarious financial situation. In order to continue in business to work out of the financial hole created by Everstad, AWI, through one of its employees, Danny O'Brien, introduced Mel Wyatt to Respondent. Respondent had known O'Brien for some 20 years and, for the proposed reason of helping O'Brien, Respondent agreed to act as qualifying contractor for AWI. To carry out this project, Respondent entered into a contract (Exhibit 4) or Employment Agreement dated July 31, 1987, in which Respondent agreed to supervise construction of projects contracted for by AWI, but the latter was to provide all material and handle all financial aspects of the contracts. Respondent received $1000 for signing this agreement and was to receive a percentage of the gross proceeds of future contracts entered into by AWI. Respondent authorized O'Brien to pull permits for AWI pursuant to Respondent's contractor's license. Although Respondent testified he gave O'Brien authorization for each specific permit pulled and did not believe he signed Exhibit 11, dated August 11, 1987, a copy of General Authorization for O'Brien to pull permits for AWI under Respondent's license, it is found as a fact that Respondent signed the original of Exhibit 11 which is a copy. Within a short period of time after executing Exhibit 4, Respondent became aware of the financial difficulties facing AWI and ceased his efforts to qualify AWI. In the latter part of 1987 (believed to be November-December), AWI reached the point that it could no longer remain solvent and filed for bankruptcy leaving several contracts unfinished for which AWI had received partial payment. Of the four contracts entered into between AWI and homeowners for additions to their houses (Exhibits 7-9 and 14), all were entered into under a printed document showing Everstad's license number; however, the building permits for Exhibits 7-9 were pulled under Respondent's license. By agreement dated August 10, 1987 (Exhibit 7), Alfred and Marjory Hauk contracted with AWI to convert a garage at their home into an office. Hauk made payments of $1000 and $2300 to AWI, the permit for the work was pulled by O'Brien under Respondent's license, but no work was ever done under this contract. AMI subsequently went out of business, and Hauk received no refund of the monies he had paid to AMI. Hauk never met Respondent. On June 12, 1987, John Davis contracted with AWI to convert an existing garage to bedroom and bath and add a garage to his home. The initial permit for this work was pulled by Kenn Covicc as contractor on June 21, 1987, and a subsequent permit was pulled by O'Brien using Respondent's license. Although Davis paid over $6000 to AWI for this work, the work stopped after the footing for the garage addition was poured. On June 2, 1987, Albert Charette entered into a contract with AWI to add a room to his house. Charette paid some $9300 of the $34,400 contract amount during the progress of the work. Differences arose between Charette and AWI involving whether the construction was being done in accordance with the plans and specifications. In September, 1987, Respondent met with Charette and submitted a proposal (Exhibit 15) to Charette to complete the project in accordance with the plans and specifications. About one week after Exhibit 15 was signed, all work stopped on the project, and Respondent never received compensation or commenced work on this contract, which he had entered into in his own name and not as a representative of AWI.
Recommendation It is recommended that Fred S. Petersen be found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(e), (f) and (g), Florida Statutes, and assessed a monetary fine of $3000. ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 11th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted, except: Finding #7, penultimate sentence which is rejected as uncorroborated hearsay. Finding #11, that portion stating the purpose of Petersen's visit to Charette was to change the licensure on the permit to Petersen is rejected. See HO #13. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted, except: Finding #4, Accepted, except with regard to Respondent's notification of termination of his association with AWI. No documentation of this act was submitted and, even though Respondent may have ultimately revoked O'Brien's authority to pull permits, this was done well after the permits were pulled. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Jurand, Esquire G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Brian A. Burden, Esquire Post Office Box 2893 Tampa, FL 33601 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified general contractor holding license number CG C008351. Respondent obtained Osceola County Building Permits and agreed to help property owners construct improvements or additions to four motels located in Osceola County, Florida. (Testimony of Record, Popesco, Matay, Solms, respondent.) Specifically, on January 29, 1980, respondent pulled Osceola County Building Permit ("building permit") No. 364-80B to construct the Record Motel, an 11-unit motel owned by Frank B. Record. On March 17, 1981, respondent pulled building permit No. 694-81B to construct a five-unit addition to the Record Motel; on January 30, 1980, he pulled building permit No. 2613-80B to add eight units to the Lakeview Motel owned by Michael Popesco; on February 2, 1980, he pulled building permit No. 2996-81B to construct a 20-unit motel known as The Key Motel, owned by Reinhold Matay; on April 8, 1981, he pulled building permit No. 3087-81B to construct a second floor addition to The Key Motel; and on March 2, 1981, he pulled building permit No. 3038-81B to construct a 20-unit motel known as the Siesta Motel, owned by Herbert Solms. (Stipulation dated June 30, 1982.) II. Respondent had a similar working arrangement with each motel owner, none of whom were licensed contractors. As the general contractor, he pulled the necessary building permits. He would perform the carpentry work on each project. The owners actively supervised and participated in their building projects. After consulting with respondent, they solicited, selected, and awarded bids to electrical, masonry plumbing, paving, and drywall subcontractors. They paid subcontractors directly and supervised their work daily. Respondent, however, would inspect the job sites intermittently, usually on weekends, sometimes during the week. But he did not directly and actively supervise the subcontractors; some were even unaware that he was the general contractor for the job. (Testimony of Record, Popesco, Matay, Solms; P-3, P- 10.) No evidence was presented to establish that the owners, for compensation, constructed these improvements for others or for resale to others. All the buildings were constructed in a satisfactory manner. The buildings passed all inspections, and the owners are entirely satisfied. (Testimony of Record, Popesco, Matay, Solms, respondent.) The owners of the various motels did not act as "contractors" within the meaning of Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes (1981).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against respondent be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR., 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 14th day of October, 1982.
The Issue The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, Petitioner, seeks to revoke the registered contractor's license of Stephen J. Borovina, Respondent, based on allegations, which will be set forth in detail hereafter, that he engaged in conduct violative of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The issue presented is whether or not the Respondent aided or abetted and/or knowingly combined or conspired with Mr. Howard North, an uncertified or unregistered contractor, to evade the provisions of Chapter 468.112(2)(b), and (c), Florida Statutes, by allowing North to use his certificate of registration without having any active participation in the operations, management, or control of North's operations. Based on the testimony adduced during the hearing and the exhibits received into evidence, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified general contractor who holds license no. CGC007016, which is current and active. On or about July 25, 1976, Mr. and Mrs. Julius Csobor entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. Howard North for the construction of a home in Martin County, Florida, for a total price of $35,990. Neither Mr. or Mrs. North are certified or registered contractors in the State of Florida. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #2). Respondent applied for and was issued a permit by the Martin County Building Department to construct a residence for the Csobors at the same address stipulated in the contract between the Csobors and the Norths, i.e., Northwest 16th Street, Palm Lake Park, Florida. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #1). Howard North, a licensed masonry contractor for approximately nine (9) years was contacted by the Csobors through a sales representative from a local real estate firm. It appears from the evidence that North had previously constructed a "spec" house which the local realtor had sold and thus put the Csobors in contact with Mr. North when they were shown the "spec" house built by North. Evidence reveals that North contacted Borovina who agreed to pull the permit "if he could get some work from the job and could supervise the project". Having reached an agreement on this point, North purchased the lot to build the home for the Csobors and he orally contracted with the Respondent to, among other things, pull the permit, supervise construction, layout the home and do trim and carpentry work. North paid Respondent approximately $200 to layout the home for the Csobors. By the time that North had poured the slab and erected the subfloor, the Csobors became dissatisfied with his (North's) work and demanded that he leave the project. According to North, Respondent checked the progress of construction periodically. Prior to this hearing, the Csobors had never dealt with Respondent in any manner whatsoever. According to Csobor, North held himself out as a reputable building contractor. A contractor is defined in relevant part as any person who, for compensation, undertakes to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or by others, construct, repair, etc. . . . real estate for others. . . Chapter 468.102(1), Florida Statutes. Applying this definition to the facts herein, it appears that the Respondent, at least in a literal sense, satisfied the requirements and obligations of a contractor, as defined in Chapter 468.102, Florida Statutes. Thus, he contracted with North to oversee and/or supervise the project for the Csobors which he fulfilled, according to the testimony of North. Said testimony was not refuted and thus I find that no effort was made by Respondent to evade any provision of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Stephen J. Borovina 2347 Southeast Monroe Street Stuart, Florida 33494 J. Hoskinson, Jr. Chief Investigator Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-1442 STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, CG C007016, 2347 S. E. Monroe Street, Stuart, Florida 33494, Respondent. / This cause came before the FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD at its regular meeting on February 10, 1978. Respondent was sent the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations and was given at least 10 days to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. Respondent was notified of the meeting so that respondent or counsel might appear before the Board. Respondent did not appear The FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD on February 10, 1978, after reviewing a complete transcript of the Administrative Hearing, by motion duly made and seconded voted to revoke the certified general contractor's license of STEPHEN J. BOROVINA. It is therefore, ORDERED that the certification of respondent STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, Number CG C007016, be and is hereby revoked. Respondent is hereby notified that he has 30 days after the date of this final order to appeal pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Appellate Rules. DATED this 13th day of February, 1978. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD BY: JOHN HENRY JONES, President ================================================================= SECOND AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, CG C007016, Respondent/Appellant, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-1442 FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner/Appellee. / This cause came before the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board at its regular meeting on August 3, 1979. The respondent was sent the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations and was given at least 10 days to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. Respondent was notified of the meeting so that respondent or counsel might appear before the Board. Respondent did appear. The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, on August 3, 1979, after reviewing a complete transcript of the Administrative Hearing, by motion duly made and seconded, voted to revoke the certified general contractor's license of Stephen J. Borovina, No. CG C007016. On February 13, 1978, the certification of respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, No. CG C007016, was revoked by order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On April 25, 1979, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, in Case Number: 78-527, reversed the final order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. That Court remanded the above captioned case to the Board to further consider the matter and enter such order as it may be advised in conformity with Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), Florida Statutes (1977). In accordance with the decision of the Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, the Board has reconsidered the above captioned matter and finds as follows: The Board rejects the recommended order as the agency's final order. The Board adopts the first paragraph of the hearing officer's finding of fact. The Board, however, rejects the findings of fact found in the second paragraph of the hearing officer's findings. The second paragraph states as follows: A contractor is defined in relevent(sic) part as any person who, for compensation, undertakes to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or by others, construct, repair, etc. real estate for others...Chapter 468.102(1), Florida Statutes. Applying this definition to the facts herein, it appears that the Respondent, at least in a literal sense, satisfied the requirements and obligations of a contractor, as defined in Chapter 468.102, Florida Statutes. Thus, he contracted with North to oversee and/or supervise the project for the Csobors which he fulfilled, according to the testimony of North. Said testimony was not refuted and thus I find that no effort was made by Respondent to evade any provision of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. The findings of fact found in the above-quoted paragraph were not based upon competent substantial evidence. The competent substantial evidence supports a finding that the respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, did not supervise the project and that Borovina evaded the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The following evidence supports the Board's position: There was no written agreement entered into between Howard North and the respondent which indicated that the respondent was to supervise the construction of the Csobors' house (T- 14); It was conceded at the hearing that the only subcontractors or draftmen who worked on the Csobors' house were contracted solely by Howard North and they had no contract whatsoever with the respondent (T-19, 25); The respondent never advised or informed Mr. and Mrs. Csobor that he was the contractor on the job. (T-51); At all times during the act of construction of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Csobor were under the impression that Howard North was the contractor (T-44-51). It is, therefore, ORDERED: That the certification of respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, Number CG 0007016, be and is hereby revoked. Respondent is hereby notified that he has thirty (30) days after the date of the Final Order to appeal pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Appellate Rules. Dated this 3rd day of August, 1979. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD BY: JOHN HENRY JONES, President
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a registered general contractor by the State of Florida, Construction Industry Licensing Board, having been issued license number RG 0014645. Respondent's address is 2533 Green Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32308. On or about October 30, 1985, Willie McFarland (McFarland) contracted with Virgil Fleming (Fleming) to perform certain improvements to Fleming's home located at 9008 Broken Lance, Tallahassee, Florida. The contract price was $24,600.00. There was no contract between Fleming and Respondent. Fleming paid McFarland $16,500.00 of the contract price. Most of this money was paid in advance of work being performed. MoFarland was not, at any time material to this proceeding, a licensed contractor in the State of Florida and both Fleming and Respondent knew that he was not a licensed contractor. McFarland was not authorized to pull a permit to complete the work and Fleming, upon finding this out, started to pull the permit as a homeowner but changed his mind. Respondent agreed to pull, and did pull, the permit for this job, after checking on McFarland and with the understanding that he would have to be involved with McFarland on the job. Without the permit, McFarland could not have continued with the job. Fleming did not pay any money to Respondent for pulling the permit or for anything else and there was no evidence that McFarland paid any money to Respondent for pulling the permit or anything else. McFarland partially completed the work contracted for with Fleming. The Respondent went to the job site on several occasions but was unable to make contact with McFarland. Respondent did make contact with McFarland on one (1) occasion after he had pulled the permit and obtained some promises from McFarland concerning the job but McFarland did not "live up" to those promises. There was credible testimony from Respondent that McFarland was not an employee of Respondent's business but that one of the conditions for pulling the permit required McFarland to be an employee of Respondent only on this job. Respondent had no knowledge of the financial arrangements between McFarland and Fleming until after the permit was pulled and McFarland had "skipped." The parties have been unable to locate McFarland.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board dismiss the Respondent from further responsibility to answer to the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 John W. Tanner, Esquire Suite One. 434 N. Halifax Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified general contractor holding license number CG C016888. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, regulating the licensure and practice status and standards of building contractors in the State of Florida and enforcing the disciplinary provisions of that chapter. On December 14, 1981, Respondent contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Frank J. Sullivan to build the Sullivans a home in Sarasota County, Florida. Those parties entered into a contract whereby the Respondent was to be paid the actual cost of construction including all labor and materials plus a commission in the amount of 8 percent of the actual cost of construction, provided however, that the total contract price would not exceed $49,000, including actual costs and commission. In January, 1982, Respondent commenced work constructing the home. The Respondent worked on the home for several months and then abruptly ceased and abandoned construction without explanation on May 14, 1982. At this time the house was approximately 70 percent complete. At the time the Respondent ceased work on the project he had already been paid $47,362.29 or approximately 97 percent of the total contract price agreed to by the parties. The Sullivans thereafter had to pay $10,633.53 to subcontractors and materialmen who had been hired by the Respondent to supply labor and/or materials to the house, at the Respondent's direction, prior to his ceasing construction and leaving the job. Additionally, the Nokomis Septic Tank Company, Inc., the subcontractor who installed the septic tank, was owed $1,180.07 by the Respondent for the installation of the septic tank, which amount was to have been paid out of the total $49,000 contract price. The Respondent failed to pay Nokomis Septic Tank Company, which then filed a mechanic's lien on the property. In order to remove this cloud on their title to the property and avoid foreclosure of the lien, the Sullivans were forced to pay the $1,180.07 amount of the lien. In addition to more than $10,000 paid to subcontractors who had already performed labor or supplied materials to the job before the Respondent left it, the Sullivans had to obtain a loan from their bank in order to finish the project. The contracted for items which the Respondent had left undone (approximately 30 percent of the construction) required them to expend $18,662.04 to complete the dwelling in a manner consistent with the contractual specifications. The items which remained to be constructed or installed are listed on Petitioner's Exhibit 7 in evidence. The remaining amount of contract price which the Respondent was due upon completion of the job would have been $1,737.71. With this in mind, as well as the fact that the Sullivans had to pay in excess of $10,000 to defray already outstanding bills to subcontractors for labor and materials already furnished and then had to obtain a loan in order to pay $18,662.04 in order to complete the house, and it being established without contradiction that the Respondent was unable to make his payroll at the point of leaving the job, the Respondent obviously used substantial amounts of the funds he received from the Sullivans for purposes other than furthering the construction project for which he contracted with the Sullivans. Concerning Count II, on December 22, 1981, Frederick Berbert doing business as Venice Enclosures of Venice, Florida, contracted with Mr. Emory K. Allstaedt of Grove City, Florida, Charlotte County, to build an addition to Mr. Allstaedt's mobile home. The contract specified a price of $4,952 for which Berbert was required to construct a 12-foot by 20-foot enclosure or porch. Mr. Allstaedt never did and never intended to contract with the Respondent, Mr. Martin, rather, his contract was only with Frederick Berbert. Mr. Berbert was a registered aluminum specialty contractor in Sarasota County. He was not registered or licensed to practice contracting in Charlotte County where Mr. Allstaedt lived and where the porch was to be constructed. On December 28, 1981, the Respondent obtained building permit number 72030 from the Charlotte County Building and Zoning Department to construct a "Florida room" for Mr. Allstaedt's mobile home, the same room to be constructed by Mr. Berbert. Under Charlotte County Ordinances in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits 13 and 13A, only a properly licensed "A", "B" or "C" contractor or a registered aluminum contractor can perform this type of job. The Respondent was appropriately licensed for this type of work in Charlotte County, but Mr. Berbert was not and thus could not obtain the permit in his own right. The Respondent's only connection with this job was obtaining the permit in his own name as contractor of record and in performing some minor work in replacing some damaged sheets of paneling shortly after the construction of the room addition and after the performance of the contract by Berbert. Though the Respondent listed himself as contractor in order to be able to obtain a building permit for the job, he never qualified as the contractor of record nor "qualified" Mr. Berbert's firm with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Both Mr. Berbert and the Respondent were aware that Mr. Berbert could not legally perform contracting in Charlotte County at the time the Respondent obtained the building permit on Berbert's behalf.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the contractor's license of Jack A. Martin be suspended for a period of ten (10) years, provided however, that if he makes full restitution to the Sullivans of all monies they expended for labor, materials and permits to enable them to complete the work he had contracted to perform, within one year from a final order herein, that that suspension be reduced to three (3) years after which his license should be reinstated. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles P. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Jack A. Martin 305 Park Lane Drive Venice, Florida James Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following material and relevant facts are found. At no time material hereto was Respondent, Donald Clark, licensed by the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board to engage in construction contracting. At no time material hereto was Cancun Development Company ever qualified or certified by any State of Florida agency as a certified contractor. With knowledge of that he was not licensed by the State of Florida to solicit, engage in, nor contract for construction work, Respondent entered into an oral agreement with homeowner Ms. Eichar to build a second-story addition to her home, located in Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, for a contract price of $30,000.00. Respondent, who was paid by Ms. Eichar a total of $25,000.00, subcontracted with Mr. Erwin, a licensed electrical contractor, to do the electrical work at the Eichar's residence for $2,364.00. Respondent, after notice, failed to attend the formal final hearing regarding this matter. The investigative and prosecution costs to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, excluding cost associated with attorney time, were $550.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered by the Department as follows: Finding Respondent, Donald Clark, guilty of having violated Subsection 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint herein filed and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00. Assess costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $550.70. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 23rd day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald Clark 813 East Bloomingdale Avenue Suite 252 Brandon, Florida 32720 Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Hamilton held registered residential contractors license number RR0015037. Hamilton agreed to construct a house in Clearmont, Florida, with a completion date no later than May 1, 1977, for Robert J. and Margaret M. Phlepsen. The construction price was $75,000.00. After construction of the house it was discovered that there existed two violations of the Southern Building Code. First, the "step-down" from the kitchen to the garage was an eleven inch riser contrary to the code requirement that the height of a riser shall not exceed seven and three quarters inches. The second violation occurred through the use of 2 X 8 joists where the code would require 2 X 10 joists. The extra high riser between the kitchen and the garage was apparently caused by an oversight. Hamilton merely failed to install an intermediate step at that location. The second violation occurred because the owner and Hamilton agreed to use the smaller joists in order to save money on the contract price. In neither case is there sufficient evidence to establish that Hamilton's violations were willful or deliberate as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. On June 6, 1978, the Lake County Board of Examiners suspended Hamilton's Lake County Certificate of Competency because of violations of building code requirements in the construction of Phlepsen's house.
