The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Willie Daniels violated sections 489.129(1)(d) and (e) F.S., as alleged in the administrative complaint, by willful violation of a local building code and aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade any provision of Chapter 489. At the hearing the material facts were uncontroverted.
Findings Of Fact Willie F. Daniels is now, and was at all times relevant, licensed as a roofing contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He holds license #RC 0027954 and does business as "Daniels Roofing', a sole proprietorship. He has been doing roofing in the Orlando, Florida area since 1954. Willie Daniels first met Thomas Dahlman when Dahlman came to his house trying to sell windows. Dahlman told him that he did all kinds of work, including windows, roofing and painting. Later Dahlman called him and said he had a roofing job that he wanted Daniels to do and that he would take him out to the house. The house belonged to Chris Correa and was located at 4421 Sebastian Way, in Orlando. Dahlman bought the materials for the job and Willie Daniels provided a day and a half labor on the roof. He was paid approximately $600.00 by Dahlman. Chris Correa was initially contacted by an agent for Thomas Dahlman who was trying to sell solar heating devices. When she told him she really needed a new roof, he said his boss could arrange that. Dahlman arranged for her loan to pay for the roof and arranged for the labor to be done by Willie Daniels. Chris Correa paid Thomas Dahlman $3,000 for the roof. About three days after the roof was completed, on February 18, 1986, she signed a contract for the roof work with Dahlman Enterprises, Inc. The contract is signed Thomas Dahlman and by Ms. Correa. Willie Daniels was not a party to the contract. The City of Orlando has adopted the Standard Building Code, including the following provision relating to permit applications: Section 105 - Application for Permit - When Required Any owner, authorized agent, or contractor who desires to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, ... or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the Building Official and obtain the required permit therefor. * * * No permit was applied for or obtained for the roofing job on Chris Correa's house. Willie Daniels assumed Thomas Dahlman was a licensed contractor because Dahlman told him he was in the business of doing roofing, painting, installing windows and similar work. He did not ask Dahlman if he was licensed. Dalhman was, in fact, not a licensed contractor.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by contracting without a license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating entry into and the practice of contracting. It is also charged with discipline of licensed contractors who violate the various provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes and the related rules, as well as those who practice contracting without appropriate licensure or certification. The Respondent, by his own admission and by stipulation, was not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed by the State of Florida for engaging in the practice of contracting, at pertinent times. On or about February 21, 1996, at her request, the Respondent provided Betty Thompson with a proposal to remodel and complete a new addition to her home at 110 Granger Street, Panama City Beach, Florida. The agreed-upon contract price was $26,685.00. Ms. Thompson signed the proposal, which contemplated construction of an addition in the amount of 593 square feet, at a price of $45.00 per square foot or $26,685.00. The price included all concrete, plumbing, and electrical work and installation. The terms of the contract stated that the price included the materials and the labor involved. The Respondent also obtained plans for the addition on Ms. Thompson's behalf. The plans depict the Respondent's name thereon as the contractor for the project. The Respondent then instructed Ms. Thompson to obtain the necessary building permit, which she did. The Respondent obtained several laborers to perform work on the project, including Eddie George, his son Shannon George, and Tim Polston. He introduced them to Ms. Thompson as the men who would perform most of the labor on the addition to her home. He hired these men as laborers and not Ms. Thompson. Later when he abandoned the job she hired them, or at least some of them, to finish the job. Eddie and Shannon George performed the majority of the actual labor on the project under the Respondent's supervision. Mr. Polston performed the electrical work. According to Mr. George's testimony they were supervised by the Respondent just as they would be by any contractor. They were paid by the Respondent by the hour. The Respondent stopped at the job site frequently and discussed the job's progress with Ms. Thompson. She addressed any questions and concerns to the Respondent, who conveyed any necessary information to his foreman, Eddie George. The Respondent also performed some construction work himself. The Respondent helped tear out a back wall of the house, set two (2) doors, did some painting, and did some air conditioning work on the project. He also checked the job site each day, and checked to see what materials were needed, and bought and delivered the needed materials. The Respondent received intermittent payments from Ms. Thompson, which he used to pay for the materials he purchased for the project. He also used a portion of those payments to pay his laborers. On or about May 6, 1996, the Respondent abandoned the job. This occurred shortly after he first met with Ms. Thompson's father who was paying for the job. Apparently there were some disagreement or issue raised between them and the Respondent never appeared at the job site again. After the Respondent abandoned the project, Ms. Thompson was unable to get another contractor to complete the job. She thereupon employed the laborers who had already worked on the job, the Georges and Tim Polston, to continue working there, which they agreed to do. It was only after the Respondent abandoned the job that Ms. Thompson paid the laborers directly herself. The addition that the Respondent contracted to construct has numerous construction flaws, including, but not limited to, malfunctioning air conditioning in the addition, improperly installed flooring, gaps between the old and new roofs and the old and new exterior concrete block work, as well as a leaking roof. These problems arose during the construction which occurred under the Respondent's supervision.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, finding that the Respondent violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by contracting without proper licensure or certification, and imposing a fine of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Boyd, Lindsey, Williams, and Branch, P.A. 1407 Piedmont Drive, East Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Sher L. Allan, Esquire 731 Oak Avenue Panama City, Florida 32402 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Linda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue The central issue in this case is Petitioner's challenge to part III of the licensure examination as set forth in his letter dated September 8, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert E. Rosser, is a candidate for licensure as a general contractor. Petitioner has taken the examination to become a licensed general contractor consecutively over the last four years. As a result of the twelve attempts at the examination, Petitioner has passed parts I and II on two separate test dates. In his attempts to pass the examination Petitioner has enrolled in and studied for the examination with two approved construction schools. Petitioner scored a 68 on part III of the general contractor's examination for the June 16, 1994 test date. Petitioner timely challenged questions related to part III (Project Management) of the general contractor's examination given on June 16, 1994. Petitioner attended a review session and claimed that as to question 2 his scratch sheet from the examination demonstrates he had used formulas properly and that he had inadvertently marked the incorrect response on the answer grid sheet. The minimum score required to pass part III of the examination was 70. For each of the challenged questions in part III (2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 17, 18, and 20) Respondent presented competent evidence to support the correct answer as scored by the Department. The Petitioner did not present credible evidence to dispute the accuracy of the answers which had been deemed correct by the Department. Based upon those answers, the Petitioner's score sheet was tabulated correctly. The questions challenged were clearly and unambiguously worded and contained sufficient factual information to reach a correct answer. The examination was open book and applicants were allowed to use reference materials. All current techniques were considered before the correct answer was chosen. All knowledge needed to reach a correct answer was within a candidate's expected range of expertise. The Department's scoring of part III was not arbitrary, capricious, or devoid of logic. For each of the challenged questions, the correct answer was scored at a higher percentage than the answers marked by Petitioner. In fact, for question 4, for example, 79 percent of the examinees scored the correct answer while only 3 percent marked the same answer as Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Bureau of Testing enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the general contractor's examination. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 23rd day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5214 Rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Petitioner did not number the paragraphs denoted as "STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS". The lettered paragraphs are addressed as listed; but where no letter identified the paragraph, the rulings are as to the paragraphs in the order of presentation. Paragraph [A] is accepted. Paragraph [B] is accepted to the extent it identifies Petitioner as a candidate otherwise rejected as not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Petitioner's citation to Rule 21E-16.005 is an error. It is accepted that the minimum passing grade for the challenged part is 70 percent out of 100 percent. Paragraph [C] is accepted in substance; however, Petitioner's citation to Rule 21E-16.003 is an error. The next paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is accepted as a correct statement of procedural review. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 4 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 7 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 9 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 11 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected as not a statement of fact. Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 17 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected as not a statement of fact. Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 18 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 20 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph [D] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is not supported by the evidence. Paragraph [E] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is not supported by the evidence. The next paragraph is merely an address for the Department and is not a statement of fact. Paragraph [F] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [G] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. The next paragraph is merely an address for the Division and is not a statement of fact. Paragraph [H] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [I] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [J] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [K] is rejected as contrary to the record in this case since an order of prehearing instruction was not entered in this case and interrogatories were not served. Paragraph [L] is rejected as irrelevant, not a statement of fact, and contrary to the record. Moreover, Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. Paragraph [M] is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [N] is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [O] is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [P] is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 4 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 1 is accepted as statement of procedural information. Paragraph 2 is accepted as to the substance but is not a statement of relevant fact. Paragraph 3 is accepted as to the substance but is not a statement of relevant fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert E. Rosser P.O. Box 560541 Miami, Florida 33256-0541 William M. Woodyard Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Hickok Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-6310
Findings Of Fact Respondent Henry Huggins is presently licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a certified general contractor under license number CO C003466. He first received his license in November of 1972 and has since been continuously licensed. His license was however suspended for a period of one year beginning on May 16, 1980. That suspension was by an Order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. In October of 1981 Mr. Huggins renewed his license on inactive status but changed it to active status in December 1981. His license continued to be active and he is the qualifying agent for Florida Petroleum Services, Inc., in Winter Park Florida. In the fall of 1980 Mr. Albert Dupre agreed to do some home renovation work for Dr. Charles Gill at Dr. Gill's residence located at 2193 Turkey Run, Winter Park, Florida. Mr. Dupre completed the work and shortly thereafter in the spring of 1981 he and Dr. Gill entered into another oral contract whereby Mr. Dupre would construct an upstairs addition to Dr. Gill's home. The addition included the installation of a bathroom and another bedroom. In exchange for these services Dr. Gill "traded off" dental work for Mr. Dupre's wife and agreed to pay an additional $12,000 or $13,000. At Mr. Dupre's request the construction permit for the upstairs addition was obtained by the Respondent Henry L. Huggins. At all times material Albert Dupre has held no contracting licenses authorizing him to individually perform the work called for by his agreement with Dr. Gill. During the time in question, that is April 1981, Respondent did not himself have an active contractor's license due to his suspension by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. He was authorized by the qualifying agent for Roberts Insurance Contractors to obtain building permits under the qualifying agent's license in order to undertake building projects for Roberts. Roberts Insurance Contractors was not a party to the agreement between Dr. Gill and Mr. Dupre for the up stairs addition to Dr. Gill's home. On April 7, 1981 Respondent obtained building permit number 7487 from the City of Winter Park, Florida, which authorized the construction of a bedroom and bathroom addition on the property of Dr. Charles Gill in Winter Park, Florida. Respondent obtained that permit on behalf of Mr. Dupre because of their friendship and their previous business associations dating back to the mid- 1970's Respondent did not supervise or otherwise participate in the construction of Dr. Gill's addition until the work was complete and Dr. Gill made a complaint to several regulatory bodies about Mr. Dupre's work. This complaint centered around the earlier air conditioning project; but once notified that there were difficulties concerning the project, Respondent, along with Mr. Dupre, completed all unfinished items and corrected all defects. As a result of Respondent's willingness to remedy those defects Dr. Gill has requested that all charges against Mr. Huggins here be dropped.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order suspending the license of Henry L. Huggins as a certified general contractor for a period of two (2) years from the date of the Board's Final Order. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9673 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1984.
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
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed general contractor, committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint or is responsible for the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified general contractor and the holder of license number CG C031547 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for A.A. Home Improvement Company, Inc. (A.A.), 4101 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and as such qualifying agent was responsible for all its contracting activities. On August 25, 1990, A.A. contracted with Anthony Williams, Sr., and Janice Williams, 1/ as the owners, to re-roof and perform internal renovations on the owners' house located at 2804 Avenue H, Fort Pierce, Florida, for a contract price of $6,900.00. The contract provided that all repairs and improvements would be done and completed in a substantial and workmanlike manner. The contract between the parties was an installment loan contract that provided for a mortgage on the house and property that was the subject of the contract. On August 25, 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Williams and Ethel Nelson gave A.A. a mortgage on the property to secure payment of the amount of the contract. A.A. assigned the mortgage to Union Mortgage Company, Inc. on August 29, 1990. Subsequent to the assignment of the mortgage to Union Mortgage Company, Inc., Janice Williams and Anthony Williams, Sr., consolidated certain debts through a loan from Metropolitan Mortgage Company of Fort Pierce, Florida. With the proceeds of the Metropolitan loan, Mr. and Mrs. Williams paid off the mortgage that had been given to A.A. on August 25, 1990, and assigned to Union Mortgage Company on August 29, 1990. To secure payment of the Metropolitan loan, Mr. and Mrs. Williams gave Metropolitan a mortgage on the subject property. The Williams were still paying off the Metropolitan mortgage at the time of the formal hearing. The contract between A.A. and the owners required A.A. to remove the existing roof of the subject property and to replace the roof with a twenty-year fiberglass roof, repair the ceilings of three rooms with sheetrock, seal off holes in two walls (these holes resulted after two air conditioning units were removed), install a vinyl floor in the dining room, renovate a bathroom to 90 percent completion, and make certain unspecified minor repairs. A.A. is not certified or registered as a roofing contractor. Respondent is not certified or registered as a roofing contractor. The repair of the roof on the subject property was work that should be performed only by a certified or registered roofing contractor. Workmen from A.A. were present at the job site for approximately a week. After the work was performed, including the roofing work, the owners began having problems with the work performed by A.A. Water began to leak through the walls where the air conditioning units had been. This leaking resulted because A.A. did not properly seal the holes in the wall. Instead, A.A. merely nailed pieces of plywood over the holes where the air conditioning units had been. The roof leaked and caused damage to interior panelling. A.A. did none of the work on the bathroom that had been contracted. Mr. and Mrs. Williams attempted to get A.A. to come back and finish the work or to correct defective work on two occasions. On two separate occasions, a representative of A.A. promised to return to the job site to complete the work and to correct defective work. A.A. did not return to the job site and made no further effort to complete or correct the work on the subject property. Mr. and Mrs. Williams will have to expend approximately $6,000 to repair the roof and interior of the house as a result of A.A.'s failure to perform its contractual duties. In negotiating the contract with A.A., the owners dealt with Christine McDonough, who was a corporate officer of A.A. and who had the authority to bind A.A. as a party to the contract. A building permit was required by the City of Fort Pierce Building Code for the construction contemplated by the subject contract. No permit was obtained by A.A. The Respondent did not supervise any of the work performed on the subject property by A.A.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $2,250.00 to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and pay restitution to Janice Williams and Anthony Williams, Sr., in the amount of $6,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The issues in this case are whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent, Paul Marchese, Jr., d/b/a Prima Construction, for violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(q), Florida Statutes (2006), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed on his license to practice contracting.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified residential contractor, having been issued License No. CRC057007 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Paul Marchese, Jr., d/b/a Prima Construction, has been doing business as Prima Construction. ABC Supply Company, Inc. (ABC Supply Company), operates as a roofing supply distributor in the State of Florida. Respondent completed and signed a credit application with ABC Supply Company. The credit application required the applicant to provide the following information: type of business ownership; address of business ownership; officers of business ownership; and credit references. The credit application includes, if applicable, a space to list the applicant's state contractor license number. The credit application includes a personal guaranty that must be completed if the business ownership has less than $2 million in annual sales, is less than two years old, has less than ten employees, or is a partnership or proprietorship. If the personal guaranty section is completed and signed, the guarantor then becomes responsible and personally liable for any debts incurred by the business ownership. Respondent listed the applicant for the credit application with ABC Supply Company as "P & C Realty (Prima)" and signed the application as the president of the company. Respondent listed his certified residential contractor License No. CRC057007 on the credit application. P & C Realty is owned by Respondent and his wife. On or about January 18, 2002, Petitioner signed the ABC Supply Company credit application as president of "P & C Realty (Prima)." In addition to signing as the applicant, Petitioner signed the "guaranty" portion of the application, in which he agreed to serve as "guarantor" of any indebtedness of the buyer to ABC Supply Company. ABC Supply Company approved the credit application, which allowed P & C Realty to purchase roofing materials from ABC Supply Company. From February 2002 to April 2002, P & C Realty purchased various roofing materials from ABC Supply Company. The materials were used in the repair of houses owned by P & C Realty, and the houses were subsequently sold by P & C Realty. P & C Realty failed to pay for the roofing materials that were purchased between February 2002 to April 2002, and the account became past due. ABC Supply Company filed a civil lawsuit against P & C Realty and Respondent in the county court in Hillsborough County, Florida. On September 13, 2005, Hillsborough County entered a final judgment in favor of ABC Supply Company and against P & C Realty and Respondent, jointly and several, in the amount of $6,319.68 for P & C Realty and Respondent's failure to pay for roofing materials.1/ Respondent did not appeal the final judgment, but failed to satisfy the final judgment within 90 days. Moreover, as of the date of this proceeding, Respondent had not satisfied this judgment. The total investigative costs of this case to the Board, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, for DBPR Case No. 2006-001485, was $288.68. On October 28, 2002, Petitioner filed a Final Order in a prior disciplinary case against Respondent in DBPR Case No. 2000-08685. That Final Order adopted and incorporated by reference the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint alleged Petitioner violated the Standard Building Code of Sarasota County by first performing construction work without first obtaining the required building permit from the Sarasota Building Department, and, as a result thereof, the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board revoked Respondent's privileges to pull permits in Sarasota County, Florida. Based on the foregoing, the Final Order in DBPR Case. No. 2000-08685 found Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes (2006), by being disciplined by any municipality or county for any act or violation of this part. Petitioner imposed a $2,500.00 fine and $165.51 in costs on Respondent in the case. On December 11, 2001, Petitioner filed a Final Order in a prior disciplinary case against Respondent in DBPR Case Nos. 2000-02105 and 2000-06442. The Final Order reflected that the case was resolved by means of a Settlement Stipulation in which Respondent agreed to pay a $5,000.00 fine, pay costs of $436.42, and, in the future, not violate the provisions of Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes (2006), or the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. In the Settlement Stipulation related to the foregoing cases, Respondent neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the Administrative Complaints.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered as follows: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(q), Florida Statutes (2006), and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00, proof of satisfaction of the civil judgment for Case No. 2003-7188-CC, and suspension of Respondent's certified residential contractor license until the civil judgment is satisfied; and Requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $288.68. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 8th day of May, 2007.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent, David R. Knight, held a registered general contractor's license numbered RG 007907 issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board initially in July, 1968. Respondent's license is presently in an inactive status for failure to renew but renewal can be accomplished by Respondent paying the required renewal fee only. On May 13, 1983, Respondent contracted with Joseph Cobb to remodel a house in Milton, Florida. The contract price was $23,800.00. The Respondent began the remodeling and when the project was approximately 50 percent completed, left the site. Joseph Cobb, on numerous occasions, offered to work with the Respondent in any way to finish the project, but the Respondent failed to return. Joseph Cobb paid Respondent $19,100.00 from May 14, 1983 through June 23, 1983. In addition, although the contract required Respondent to pay for all supplies and materials, Cobb paid $2,300.98 for supplies and material used in the remodeling. Respondent failed to pay Gary Rich Plumbing for the plumbing work done on the Cobb residence. Joseph Cobb was forced to pay Gary Rich $1,200.00 in order to avoid a lien being filed on his home. Respondent was not licensed to contract in Milton, Santa Rosa County, Florida, when he contracted with Joseph Cobb to perform remodeling. In June, 1982, Respondent contracted with Pearlie Rutledge to remodel a house at 608 North D Street, Pensacola, Florida, Escambia County. The contract price was $17,000.00. The Respondent began the construction without obtaining a building permit which is in violation of Section 106 Standard Building Code as adopted by the City of Pensacola Ordinance 81-83. Respondent deliberately and in a hurry left the site of construction when the building inspector appeared on the job. The Respondent was not licensed in Escambia County or the City of Pensacola to practice contracting. Pearlie Rutledge paid Respondent $5,000.00 which the Respondent failed to return when the remodeling was stopped by Charles Humphreys, Housing Inspector for the City of Pensacola. Pearlie Rutledge obtained a Final Judgement against the Respondent for $4,557.00 which has not been paid by the Respondent. Respondent's "81-82' and "82-83", Okaloosa County Occupational License was issued to David Knight doing business as "Your Way Construction." However, there was no evidence presented at the hearing that Respondent ever contracted in the name of "Your Way Construction." In fact there is evidence that during the year 1983 he contracted with Cobb as David Knight, General Contractor and not as David Knight, General Contractor, d/b/a Your Way Construction. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.)
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order Dismissing Counts II, V and VI of the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding Respondents guilty of the violation charged in Counts I, III and IV of the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent and for such violation it is RECOMMENDED that the Board revoke the Respondent's registered general contractor's license numbered RG 0007907, to practice contracting in the State of Florida Respectfully submitted and entered this 9th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-3836 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 Petitioner to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Exhibit 1). 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2 except for contract amount which should have been $23,800. (See Petitioner's Respondent Did Not Submit Any Proposed Findings of Fact COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. David R. Knight 1215 East Hayes Street Pensacola, Florida 32503
