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
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., 489.129(1)(j), 489.129(1)(i), 489.129(1)(m), and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes (2002), as alleged in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of building contractors pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is a Florida State Certified Building Contractor who holds license number CBC053702. On December 9, 2002, Mack Hayes entered into a contract with "McKay Engineering/Construction" to build an addition to the Hayes residence located at 3011 East Deleuil Avenue in Tampa, Florida. Although the contract refers to McKay Engineering/Construction rather than McKay Engineering Services, Inc., subsequent change orders to the contract show the Respondent's license number in the letterhead. In correspondence to the Petitioner, the Respondent also acknowledged that he was the contractor on the Hayes project. The Hayes contract did not contain a statement explaining the consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, stated that Mr. Hayes remains eligible for assistance from the Fund. The original contract price for the construction was $54,700. Change orders created an adjusted price of $57,450. During the course of the construction, Mr. Hayes made four payments to the Respondent totaling $49,000. Not long after the construction commenced in January 2003, Mr. Hayes and his wife became frustrated with the slow pace of the construction. Mr. Hayes originally understood that the work would take about 90 days. Instead, the construction remained uncompleted after nine months. In July 2003, the pace of work on the Hayes' addition slowed substantially and in October, the Respondent ceased work altogether. The Respondent ceased work on the project despite the fact that he had not been fired or otherwise given a reason to cease work. In order to facilitate progress on the construction, Mr. Hayes paid the air conditioning subcontractor $1,836, the electrical subcontractor $1,000, and the stucco subcontractor $800, even though it was the Respondent's responsibility under the parties' contract to pay the subcontractors. The Respondent's construction of the new roof of the residence was of particular concern to Mr. Hayes. The tie-in of new roof framing with the existing roof was misaligned and otherwise improperly installed which caused the new roof to sag. The records of the City of Tampa indicate that the Respondent did not obtain a permit from the City for the roofing work at the Hayes residence. In an attempt to repair the roof, large holes were cut in the ceiling to gain access for cutting some of the rafters. The holes in the ceiling were not repaired by the Respondent. The plywood and other wood used on the unfinished eaves was left exposed to weather for months, which has resulted in water damage to the wood that will necessitate that it be replaced. Mr. Hayes obtained cost estimates from two other contractors to repair the roof, gables, and eaves installed by the Respondent. One estimate was $17,490 (including materials) and the other estimate was $15,550 (without materials). Numerous aspects of the construction project were never started or were started and then abandoned, including the gables and eaves, the door trim and hardware, internal electrical box, attic access, plumbing, and front trim. Mack Hayes paid $2,500 to Ezekial Bain and $2,500 to Drains, Etc. to finish some of this work after the Respondent abandoned the project. Taking into account the adjusted contract price of the construction, the amount paid to the Respondent by Mr. Hayes, the direct costs paid to subcontractors by Mr. Hayes, and the reasonable estimated costs for repair of the roof, gables, and eaves, the total financial damages that the Respondent caused to Mr. Hayes is $17,676. The Petitioner did not present expert testimony regarding the competency of the Respondent as a building contractor. Without such testimony, the record evidence is not sufficient to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the problems associated with this particular project were due to incompetence. The problems could have been caused solely by the Respondent's mismanagement and misconduct. The Petitioner incurred investigative costs of $817.66 for the investigation and prosecution of this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order requiring: that the Respondent pay financial restitution to the Hayes of $17,676; that the Respondent obtain seven hours of continuing education in the area of Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes, in addition to the hours required for renewal of the Respondent's certification; that the Respondent's license be suspended for two years; and that the Respondent reimburse the Petitioner for its investigative costs of $817.66. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 18th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian Elzweig, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Curt L. McKay 9726 Timmons Loop Thonotosassa, Florida 33592 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Tim Vaccaro, Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has violated provisions of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Law, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken. The administrative complaint specifically charges Respondent with aiding an unlicensed person to evade provisions of the contracting licensing law, conspiring with an unlicensed person to allow his license to be used to evade provisions of the law, acting as a contractor under a name other than as appears on his registration, and failing to properly qualify a company under which he was doing business. Respondent denies the allegations.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been duly licensed by the Petitioner as a building contractor. On March 23, 1980, Nettie Wilkes entered into a contract with Rado Construction, Inc. The contract was for Rado to enclose a carport at Wilkes' residence and to do other work incident to that renovation. The contract provided that work would commence on April 10, 1980, and be completed approximately 21 to 30 days from the start. The total contract price was $5,700, and Mrs. Wilkes gave Rado a $1,500 down payment. Donald W. Gray negotiated the contract on behalf of Rado with Wilkes. Gray appears to be the principal party in Rado Construction. Gray contacted James Neilan and Jerry Polk about performing the work on the Wilkes project. Gray did not show Polk a copy of the contract with Wilkes, and he led Polk to believe that considerably less work would need to be performed than was required under the contract. Although Polk had a local occupational license as a carpenter, he was not a licensed contractor, and was not able to obtain a building permit for the work. Neilan and Gray were also unlicensed and unable to obtain a permit. Polk assumed that he would be working for Gray in a subcontracting capacity. Polk had performed considerable carpentry work on a subcontracting basis for the Respondent. Polk felt that the Respondent might help him obtain a permit. Polk approached the Respondent about the Wilkes' project. He told the Respondent the scope of the project as it bad been related to Polk by Gray. He did not advise the Respondent of the involvement of Gray or of Rado Construction. Polk initially asked the Respondent if the Respondent would be able to do the job and the Respondent indicated that he could not. Polk and the Respondent discussed the job on a casual basis and the discussion ended. Several days later, Polk returned to the Respondent's office and asked the Respondent if the Respondent could obtain the building permit and allow Polk to perform the work on a subcontractor basis. Respondent drew up some plans about the project. He agreed to Polk's proposal. The Respondent filed an application with the building inspection department of the City of Orlando for a building permit on April 15, 1980. A permit was issued by the city on that same date. Respondent had estimated the cost of the project, based upon his discussion with Polk, as being approximately $2,000. The Respondent delivered the permit to Polk and advised Polk that he would be inspecting the project periodically. Polk posted the permit at the Wilkes' property and worked together with James Neilan on the project. The work did not commence as scheduled in the contract between Rado Construction and Mrs. Wilkes, but it did commence sometime after April 15, 1980. As the project went on, Gray would from time to time visit the site and advise Polk and Neilan of additional work that would need to be performed that Polk had not known about earlier. Polk did not know that considerable masonry work would be required. He was not qualified to do masonry work, but he attempted to perform it. As the work went on, Polk became more and more dissatisfied, and ultimately concluded that what had been described to him as a one and one-half week job for two people was in reality a two-week job for ten men. Polk ultimately removed the permit from the premises and abandoned his work there. Approximately four days after he obtained the building permit for Polk, the Respondent visited the job site. He observed that no work had commenced and he contacted Polk. Polk erroneously advised the Respondent at that time that the project had been abandoned and that the permit would not be utilized. Respondent heard nothing more about the project for approximately four weeks. Mrs. Wilkes eventually became dissatisfied with the nature of the services that were being performed on her property. When Polk abandoned further work, she contacted the building permit officials and was advised that the Respondent, not Rado Construction, had obtained the permit. She contacted the Respondent and advised him of what had occurred. The Respondent promptly visited Mrs. Wilkes at her home. He was surprised and appalled to find that very poor work had been performed in a very sloppy manner. He discussed the matter at length with Mrs. Wilkes and learned for the first time of Gray's involvement in the project. He advised Mrs. Wilkes that he would not be able to do the job, but he gave her a check for $600 which she told him would be sufficient to complete the project. Respondent also provided laborers to perform cleanup work at the site, and hired a subcontractor to pour a driveway. Respondent expended approximately $1,000 to complete the project for Mrs. Wilkes. The Respondent located Gray, and in an unpleasant confrontation, obtained a promissory note from Gray for $1,000 to compensate the Respondent for his expenditures. The Respondent ultimately accompanied Mrs. Wilkes to a first meeting of creditors at Gray's bankruptcy proceedings. The Respondent has not previously or subsequently engaged in business in the manner that he did in this transaction. He is a reputable contractor and is contrite about the role that he played in the transaction.
Findings Of Fact At all time material hereto, Respondent, Ronald J. Gurney, has been registered as an electrical contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ER0004532, and held certificates of competency as an electrical contractor issued by Dade County and Broward County, Florida. By letter of July 25, 1989, Metropolitan Dade County charged the respondent with violating various sections of Chapter 10, Dade County Code. Specifically, such letter charged that between August 22, 1988, and June 16, 1989, with regard to jobs at 1520 Euclid Avenue and 531-41 16th Street, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida, the respondent did: . . . violate Section 4505.5(a) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to obtain the mandatory rough inspection of work performed under Permit . . . said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative conditions of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. . . . unlawfully violate Section 10-22(b) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County . . . [by] abandon[ing] without legal excuse . . . [such] . . . electrical job[s]. . . . . . . unlawfully violate Section 10-22(g) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County . . . [by] fail[ing] to fulfill . . . [his] . . . contractual obligation to complete . . . [such] . . . electrical job. . . . Such letter further advised respondent that a formal hearing would be held on September 5, 1989, before the Construction Trades Qualifying Board (CTQB) to consider such charges, and what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken. On September 5, 1989, respondent appeared for the hearing, as scheduled, however, because the complaining witnesses did not appear, the CTQB continued the hearing. Thereafter, the hearing was rescheduled for November 21, 1989, and respondent did not appear. Notwithstanding, the CTQB proceeded with the hearing, and following its consideration of the evidence found that respondent had violated Sections 10-16(a), 10-22(b) and 10-22(g), Dade County Code, and issued a reprimand, fined respondent $2,500.00, suspended his certificates for three years, and revoked his certificates. By letter of December 1, 1989, Dade County advised respondent of the foregoing decision, and advised him of his right to appeal the decision of the CTQB. Respondent did not appeal such decision but, rather, filed a motion, through counsel, with the CTQB to vacate its decision based on respondent's contention that he did not receive notice of the November 21, 1989, hearing. Such motion was denied on January 9, 1990, and respondent did not appeal or otherwise seek review of such decision. At hearing, respondent offered proof, which is credited, that as a consequence of the action taken by Dade County he lost his position as Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Hialeah; a position that paid $50,000.00 a year. Here, there was no suggestion or proof that respondent had previously been the subject of any prior disciplinary proceeding. To the contrary, the only proof of record on this issue was offered by respondent, and demonstrated that the action brought by Dade County was his first offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds the respondent guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 489.533(1)(n), Florida Statutes, which imposes an administrative fine against him in the sum of $250.00, and which places his license on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of November 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 15th day of November 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1 & 2. Addressed in paragraph 1. 3-7. Addressed in paragraph 2, otherwise rejected as unnecessary detail. Addressed in paragraph 3. Rejected as not supported by competent proof. 10-14. Addressed in paragraph 3. 15-19. Addressed in paragraph 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Harris, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1620 Medical Lane, Suite 148 Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Ronald J. Gurney 11201 Southwest 55th Street Box 79 Miramar, Florida 33025 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is licensed as a general contractor in the State of Florida and registered with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. That agency is the agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting in the State of Florida and with monitoring the compliance of licensees with the various provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and pertinent rules relating to licensure standards and practice standards of contractors. On April 23, 1980, one Terry Burch and Jim Goodman were operating a construction business under the fictitious name of "T. J. Associates." Neither Terry Burch or Jim Goodman, nor the entity known as T. J. Associates, was qualified or licensed with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board at that time, nor at times subsequent thereto which are pertinent to this proceeding. On April 23, 1980, T. J. Associates entered into a written contract with homeowners Florence Martin and her husband to remodel their home at 120 Broadview Avenue, Winter Park, Florida. The original contract was for $26,615.00 with various addenda to that contract, such that the total net contract price, with modifications, ultimately reached $40,597.00. Both the contract and the modification agreements were signed by the Martins and Terry Burch of T. J. Associates. The Respondent, Steven Shields, was not a party to any of these agreements. Mr. Burch and Mr. Goodman of T. J. Associates, obtained the Martin contract entirely through their own efforts and after obtaining the signed contract, approached the Respondent, Steven Shields, to ask him to draft blueprints for the job, also proposing that the three of them enter into some sort of partnership or other business arrangement. During the meeting at which this business was discussed, it was revealed to the Respondent that T. J. Associates was unlicensed with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and the three men agreed that they would obtain proper application documents from the Board's office in Orlando for filing so as to properly qualify the company. In the meantime, the Respondent agreed to obtain from the City of Winter Park Building Department, the necessary building permits and did so. The Respondent was ultimately paid $600.00 by T. J. Associates for labor he performed on the subject project and for obtaining a building permit in his own name. The Respondent ultimately decided not to enter into a business relationship with T. J. Associates, Burch and Goodman. He did, however, work on the "Martin project" as a sort of job supervisor or foreman, performing some labor on the job and going to the job site on possibly two or three occasions during the course of the construction effort of T. J. Associates. The Respondent initially intended to use his contractor's license to properly qualify T. J. Associates with the Board and obtain the papers to do so, but after he did not enter the formal business relationship with T. J. Associates, neglected to do so, nor did T. J. Associates make any further effort to qualify itself as a contracting entity with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The Respondent did obtain the building permit for T. J. Associates for the Martin job on May 13, 1980, and obtained it under his individual name and contractor license number. T. J. Associates worked on the Martin job from May 6, 1980, to July 16, 1980. On July 16, 1980, after a dispute regarding the quality of the paint work and other matters, T. J. Associates and the Respondent stopped all work. At the time of the stoppage, the work was 90 percent complete. At the time the work was stopped, no more money was due to T. J. Associates for work already performed. The Martins, at that point, had paid T. J. Associates $35,900.00. The Martins had however, upon advice of their attorney, withheld sufficient funds at the point of cessation of work by T. J. Associates, to enable them to pay for the completion of the job by other labor and materialmen. Three subcontractors had been hired or contracted with by T. J. Associates for work which was performed by them on the Martin job. Those three subcontractors, Mr. Anthony Costa, Mr. Clyde Ray and Mr. Michael Ellis, had performed work for which they were owed, respectively, $531.00, $550.00 and $130.00. None of those three subcontractors have, as yet, been paid for these amounts. They repeatedly attempted to obtain payment from T. J. Associates, but were given no satisfaction in that regard. The Respondent never entered into any agreement or hiring arrangement with the three subcontractors involved, nor did the Respondent ever have possession or control of any funds paid from the Martins to T. J. Associates from which the subcontractors should have been paid. The Respondent only received the above- mentioned $600.00 from T. J. Associates for his services.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of a violation of Section 489.129(1)(e) and (k), in that he aided and abetted an uncertified, unregistered person to evade the act and violated Subsection (k) by abandoning the project without just cause. The remaining charges in the Administrative Complaint should, however, be dismissed. In view of the violations proven, an administrative fine of $500.00 and a three (3) month suspension of his license, followed by a one (1) year period of probation is warranted. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 22nd day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles E. Hoequist, Esquire 301 North Ferncreek Orlando, Florida 32803 James Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Harry L. Wilson is the holder of a registered roofing contractor's license from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The license, Number RC 0041328, was first issued in March of 1982. The license was issued in the name of Harry L. Wilson Roofing, 1943 Hardy Street, Jacksonville, Florida, with the Respondent as qualifier. The Respondent has been the qualifier of Harry L. Wilson Roofing at all times relevant to this proceeding. On December 6, 1984, the Respondent and Robbie L. Hicks, entered into a written contract (Petitioner'S Exhibit 2). Pursuant to this written contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract"), the Respondent agreed to perform the repair work specified in the Contract in a "professional manner" and Ms. Hicks agreed to pay the Respondent $2,395.00. The property to be repaired is rental property owned by Ms. Hicks. The property is located at 1508 Eaverson Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The Respondent commenced work sometime during the early part of 1983. Shortly after commencing work, however, the Respondent and Ms. Hicks began having disagreements as to the work to be performed and the quality of the Respondent's work. These disagreements continued after the Respondent completed the work in November of 1983. Ms. Hicks testified that the work that the Respondent completed was done in an unprofessional manner and that the Respondent had not completed all of the work that he had agreed to perform. In particular, Ms. Hicks testified that the Respondent had failed to paint the interior of the house beige as required by the Contract, had failed to remove saw dust and other debris from the house following completion of the work, had failed to finish cabinets installed in the house, had failed to repair screens and generally had not performed in the manner he had agreed to perform. Ms. Hicks paid the Respondent all but $410.00 of the contract price. The Respondent testified that all off the work called for pursuant to the Contract had been performed. According to the Respondent, he had performed some work not required by the Contract and had not performed other work requested by Ms. Hicks because the work was beyond the scope of the Contract. The Respondent also stated that the work which Ms. Hicks expected would have cost considerably more than the price agreed upon in the Contract. The Respondent did not perform all of the work specified in the Contract in a "professional manner" as required by the Contract. Based upon the testimony of Mr. Claude Bagwell, Deputy Chief, Building and Zoning, Inspection Division of the City of Jacksonville, it is clear that no permit was issued by the City of Jacksonville to perform the work required by the Contract. The only permits issued with regard to Ms. Hicks' rental property was a permit issued in 1961 and the original building permit issued in 1949. Additionally, due to the fact that no Florida registered roofing contractor's license in the name of "Harry L. Wilson Roofing" had been filed with the City of Jacksonville, no permit could be issued to Harry L. Wilson Roofing with regard to the Contract. The Respondent admitted that he had not obtained a permit to perform the work required by the Contract. The Respondent indicated that he had not obtained a permit because he was not aware that one was required in order to perform the work. He did indicate that he had obtained permits to perform other jobs. The Respondent could not, however, have obtained permits for other jobs because no license issued in the name of Harry L. Wilson Roofing had been filed with the City of Jacksonville. The Respondent did take the examination required in order to obtain a registered roofing contractor's license. The Petitioner suggested in its Proposed Findings that the "permit requirement was explained" when the Respondent took the exam. No evidence to support such a finding was presented at the hearing. The Respondent in entering into the Contract clearly used the name "Wilson Recycling". Nowhere on the Contract is the name "Harry L. Wilson Roofing" used. The Respondent ultimately admitted that no Florida license authorizing the use of the name "Wilson Recycling" had been obtained by him. The Respondent, however, when initially asked whether a Florida license in the name of "Wilson Recycling" had been obtained indicated that such a license had been issued. On further examination, however, the Respondent testified that an occupational license in the name of "Wilson Recycling' had been obtained by him and not a Florida license. The work to be performed pursuant to the Contract was beyond the scope off the Respondent's license. As pointed out by Mr. Bagwell the work to be performed pursuant to the Contract would require licensure as a registered residential contractor or more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That count I of the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129 (1)(g), Florida Statutes (1983), by contracting in a name other than the name as set forth on the Respondent's license. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1983), by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.119(2) and(3), Florida Statutes (1983), in that the Respondent failed to qualify the business name "Wilson Recycling" with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1983), when he failed in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes (1983), by contracting to perform and actually performing work beyond the scope of his Florida contracting license. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner suspend Respondent's roofing contractor's license for a period of three (3) months. DONE and ENTERED this17th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 17th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry L. Wilson 1943 Hardee Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2005),1 by abandoning a construction project, and, if so, the appropriate discipline; and Whether Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(i) by virtue of her violation of section 489.127(1)(f), which prohibits engaging in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor without being licensed, and, if so, the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence, the following facts were made: Ms. Curbelo is a certified building contractor, doing business as A+ Construction & Management, Inc. The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board issued Ms. Curbelo License No. CBC 1255321 on March 12, 2007. She is currently licensed as the qualifying agent of A+ Construction & Management, Inc., and she was issued qualified business organization certificate of authority License No. QB53665. Before March 12, 2007, Ms. Curbelo was not licensed pursuant to chapter 489, Part I, to practice construction contracting. In December 2005, Ms. Curbelo purchased A+ Construction & Remodeling, Inc., and became its sole corporate officer. She renamed the entity A+ Construction & Management, Inc. (A+ Construction). Before March 12, 2007, A+ Construction was not duly licensed pursuant to chapter 489, Part I. Further, its predecessor, A+ Construction & Remodeling, Inc., was never duly licensed pursuant to chapter 489, Part I. On January 25, 2006, Mr. Torres was provided a proposal from Ms. Curbelo, doing business as A+ Construction & Remodeling, Inc. The proposal was to remodel, renovate, and repair Mr. Torres' home located at 1031 Hunting Lodge Drive, Miami Springs, Florida 33166. On January 27, 2006, Mr. Torres accepted the proposal, and it formed the agreement between Ms. Curbelo and Mr. Torres. Mr. Torres made an initial payment of $24,900.00 to A+ Construction on February 6, 2006, which was due under the contract upon acceptance. The agreed contract price for the work was $166,000.00. The contract contained a description of the work to be completed and a draw schedule that provided for payment as the work progressed. Mr. Torres made payments to A+ Construction for the time period of February 8, 2006, through April 10, 2007. The payments totaled $157,700.00 and corresponded with a majority of the work contracted to be completed under the contract. The only draw that Mr. Torres did not pay was in the amount of $8,300.00 that was due "upon completion" of the work. Mr. Torres credibly testified that he paid A+ Construction for work that had not been completed in order to move the job along to completion. Furthermore, Mr. Torres credibly testified that when he would question Mr. Luis Curbelo, the job-site foreman, about the status of the work, Mr. Curbelo would threaten to walk off the job. Mr. Torres identified a check, Petitioner's Exhibit 6, that he made payable to First Call Roofing dated August 23, 2007, in the amount of $5,000.00. Mr. Torres explained that he paid First Call Roofing because he was desperate to get his leaking roof repaired. Mr. Torres paid this amount even though he had previously paid A+ Construction for repairs to the roof as part of the contract. The evidence also showed that during the work, Mr. Torres requested change orders which were not part of the original contract. Although these change orders increased the costs above the original contract, it was not disputed that Mr. Torres fully paid A+ Construction for all of the work outside of the contract. Sometime in late August 2007, A+ Construction stopped work on the job and failed to return. Mr. Torres credibly testified that he had an estimate from another contractor that the construction job was left approximately 40 percent completed and that it would cost an estimated amount of $108,000.00 to complete the job. The Department, however, did not introduce any non-hearsay evidence to support the estimate to complete the work or the costs to complete the construction. After A+ Construction stopped work on the job, Mr. Torres testified that he called in a series of inspections and that his home had passed the inspections. He stated that a majority of the inspections had been called in by him. Ms. Curbelo and Mr. Luis Curbelo offered the following three explanations for why A+ Construction stopped work on Mr. Torres' house: first, Mr. Torres failed to approve a payment draw concerning installation of windows; second, Mr. Torres' construction job included work for which Mr. Torres had not paid; and finally, Mr. Torres attempted to undercut A+ Construction by directly dealing with its subcontractors. None of these offered reasons is supported by the evidence. The record clearly showed that Mr. Torres made all of the payments required under the contract, except the final draw of $8,300.00, which was due on completion of the job. Consequently, under the contract, Mr. Torres had fully paid, including amounts for windows, all amounts that were owed under the contract when A+ Construction abandoned the job. The final draw was not due until completion, and A+ Construction had not completed the job. Next, the record clearly shows that Mr. Torres paid for all change orders. Therefore, the record does not support Ms. Curbelo's claim that A+ Construction stopped work because of non-payment. Finally, the record clearly showed that Mr. Torres contracted with the roofing subcontractor to do work that A+ Construction had been paid to do, but had not done. Thus, the evidence did not support the contention that A+ Construction had stopped work because Mr. Torres attempted to undercut them by dealing with the subcontractors. The record clearly shows that Ms. Curbelo, doing business as A+ Construction, abandoned the construction job. Next, the record does not support the claim that the building inspections showed that 85 percent of the remodeling had been completed on the job and that work stopped because of Mr. Torres' non-payment. Considering that Ms. Curbelo stopped work in August 2007, a review of the building inspections shows that many of the inspections occurred after she abandoned the job. None of the inspections shows the percentage of work completed by A+ Construction. Finally, the record does not support Ms. Curbelo's testimony that Mr. Torres was aware that at the time of entering into the contract that she did not have a contractor's license and that the job was under the supervision of Joe Anon (Mr. Anon). Ms. Curbelo testified that Mr. Torres was aware the Mr. Anon would be the general contractor, as his name was on the January 25, 2006, contract. Interestingly, the document that Ms. Curbelo relies upon for her testimony is a proposal dated January 25, 2006, from A+ Construction & Management, Inc. This document is nearly identical to the 11-page proposal from the A+ Construction & Remodeling, Inc., to Mr. Torres on the same date for the repairs to the home. However, two important differences are found on the faces of the two exhibits. On Respondent's Exhibit 2, under the logo of "A+ Construction" are the terms "& Management, Inc. For Joe Anon, GC." In contrast, Petitioner's Exhibit 3 shows the logo of "A+ Construction & Remodeling" with no reference to the later company or Mr. Anon's name. Both of these exhibits purport to be from the same proposal given to Mr. Torres on the same day. Yet, out of the composite exhibit of 12 pages, only Ms. Curbelo's offered document contains Ms. Curbelo's subsequent company's name or reference to Mr. Anon. Moreover, unlike the Department's exhibit, the exhibit offered by Ms. Curbelo is unsigned by Mr. Torres. Consequently, the document offered by Ms. Curbelo is untrustworthy. Thus, the undersigned rejects as unbelievable Ms. Curbelo's claims that Mr. Torres knew that she was not a licensed general contractor and that the construction project was being overseen by a licensed contractor. Mr. Torres credibly testified in rebuttal that he did not meet Mr. Anon until after Ms. Curbelo abandoned the job. Further, Mr. Torres credibly testified that his "biggest mistake was paying ahead" to get work completed. The Department's total investigative costs of this case, excluding attorney's fees, is $414.57. The evidence showed that Ms. Curbelo does not have any prior disciplinary actions against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board: Finding Respondent, Chandra Beth Curbelo, guilty of having violated section 489.129(1)(j), Count I of the Administrative Complaint, imposing as a penalty a fine of $7,500.00, and placing Ms. Curbelo's license on probation for a period of four years; Finding Ms. Curbelo guilty of having violated sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.129(1)(i), as set out in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, imposing a fine of $7,500.00, and placing her license on probation for a period of four years; and Requiring Ms. Curbelo to pay the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $414.57. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 5th day of January, 2011.
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Respondent/Licensee, Tomas Perez, d/b/a Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc. (Lifetime), engaged in conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, which warrants the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board) to take disciplinary action respecting his license and to impose an administrative fine based on said alleged conduct.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Tomas Perez, d/b/a Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc. (Respondent), is a certified general contractor who holds license No. CGCA 04170, which is active. On September 24, 1975, Mr. Perez used his license to qualify Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc., as the entity through which he would conduct his business activities (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On August 15, 1978, Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc. , entered into an agreement with James Laughery of Fort Myers, Florida, for a franchise agreement to use Lifetime's license in the immediate area of Fort Myers, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). That agreement provides, among other things, that Respondent Lifetime authorized James Laughery to use its license in the Fort Myers area for a fee of $50.00 per job or $1,500.00. The agreement does not provide, nor was any evidence offered to establish that Respondent Perez played any supervisory or managing role in agent Laughery's contracting activities in the Fort Myers area. During October of 1978, Mr. Andrew Szarfran entered into an agreement with Respondent's agent, Laughery, to perform certain roofing repairs to his residence for the sum of $1,000.00. Mr. Szarfran paid Laughery $500.00 and Laughery abandoned the project prior to completion (Testimony of Szarfran and Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4). Mr. Szarfran engaged the services of another contractor to complete the project. On May 17, 1979, the Lee County Construction Board reviewed a complaint filed against Respondent by the Szarfrans. Based on that review, the Lee County Construction Board revoked Respondent's licensing privileges in the county at its June, 1979, meeting (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4 and testimony of witnesses Richard M. McDole and Maxine Allred, Administrative Director of Court Enforcement and Permit Clerk, respectively, for Lee County). On or about October 17, 1978, Respondent's agent, Laughery, also entered into an agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Swanson for the erection of aluminum siding to the exterior walls of their residence for a full price of $5,000.00. The Swansons gave Respondent's agent, Laughery, a downpayment of $2,500.00 and agent Laughery abandoned the project prior to the commencement of any work (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 and 8 and testimony of Mrs. Swanson). Richard Newmes, the chief inspector for building and zoning, Cafe Coral, Florida, testified that the Construction Industry Licensing Board for Cape Coral, Florida, revoked Respondent's contractor license on January 17, 1979, based on his violation of Cape Coral Code Section 5-1/2 - 21(J), to wit: "Failure to make good faulty workmanship or materials performed or installed to evade performance of the contract or specifications as agreed upon." (Petitioner's Exhibit 9.) On or about January 4, 1979, Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc., became aware of its agent, James Laughery's mismanagement of funds and his failure to honor contractual obligations he had entered in the Fort Myers area. Respondent and its agent Laughery therefore entered into an agreement which rendered the franchise agreement between the parties null and void. Agent Laughery, in said agreement, promised to pay, from his commissions due, monies owed to Lifetime Chemicals, Inc., which apparently was brought about due to the restitution that Lifetime Chemicals had made to customers whom agent Laughery had defaulted. As mitigating evidence, it was noted that the Respondent, Tomas Perez, was not party to or familiar with the activities and/or difficulties that the designated agent for Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc., James Laughery, was encountering in the Fort Myers vicinity before early January, 1979. As soon as Respondent became aware of Laughery's problems, steps were immediately taken to halt such acts insofar as they related to Respondent (Testimony of Tomas Perez and Michael Arfaras).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the mitigating evidence which revealed that although the Petitioner is authorized and in fact holds the qualifier license of a registered entity responsible for the acts of its agents, in view of the undisputed evidence which reflects that neither Respondent Perez or Respondent Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc., in any manner benefited from the acts of its agents and in fact attempted to thwart the illegal acts of its agent as soon as such became known, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: l. That the Respondent, Tomas Perez's Certified General Contractor's license, CGCA 04170, be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. 2. That the Respondents, Tomas Perez and Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc. , be issued a written letter of reprimand. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 24th day of April, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Tomas Perez 2395 West 12th Avenue Hialeah, Florida 33010 Michael Harold Arfaras 820 S.W. 20th Avenue Miami, Florida 33135 Mr. J. K. Linnan Executive Director 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. CASE NO. 79-2173 THOMAS PEREZ, CGCA 04170 Respondent. /
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
