The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a Florida-licensed roofing contractor and general contractor. He received his roofing contractor's license on August 10, 2004, and his general contractor's license on October 13, 2005. At all times material to the instant case, GGC has held a certificate of authority authorizing it to engage in contracting in Florida through a qualifying agent. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent has been the primary qualifying agent for GGC. On January 5, 2007, GGC, through Respondent, entered into a written contract with Assad and Millicent Thompson, agreeing, for $37,135.00, to construct a rear porch lanai addition to the Thompsons' single family home in Royal Palm Beach, Florida (Project). The Thompsons paid GGC (by check) $11,140.50 at the time they entered into the contract. They made three subsequent payments to GGC (by check) totaling $21,232.50. The last of these payments was made on or about April 17, 2007. On January 9, 2007, GGC, through Respondent, applied for a permit from the Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning, and Building Department to perform the work it had agreed to do on the Thompsons' home. The permit was subsequently issued. In or around March of 2007, GGC began work on the Project. Dissatisfied with the progress GGC was making on the Project, the Thompsons, on June 5, 2007, sent the following letter to Respondent: With reference to the delay in completing the above construction, we are writing to request your immediate attention. We would like to know specifically: The reason for the delay[.] Your intention in writing as to your estimated time of completion of [the] specified project. Please note we have not physically seen you since April 19, 2007. We understand that inspection of the roof on May 10th resulted in certain violations and as per your conversation with Assad [Mr. Thompson] (when he called you on May 20th), you had problems contacting the Engineer. Please note that his name, telephone and fax are clearly indicated on the plan[s]. Per telephone conversation with him, he has not heard from you recently. You have indicated impatience and anxiety on our part, quite frankly the patience of JOB would have run out long ago. The pile of rubbish is a breeding room for all kinds of creatures and has been a disgusting sight not only for us, but for our neighbors. The open roof has created a vulnerable situation for us and can only deteriorate as we are now in hurricane season. We urge you to contact us urgently with your plan of action. Not having received a written response from Respondent, the Thompsons, on June 25, 2007, sent a follow-up letter to Respondent, which read as follows We note that you have ignored our previous letter of June 5th and you have also failed to honor your telephone promises of June 8th and June 19th to proceed with stucco/electric/rubbish removal etc. In fact absolutely nothing has been done on this job since May 18th. This is totally unacceptable. We have arrangements in place for use of the patio July 14th, cancellation of which will result in serious inconvenience for us. Please be advised that if no progress is made by June 30, 2007, we will be forced to seek all measures at our disposal to have the patio satisfactorily completed. We once again request your urgent co-operation in this matter. The next day, June 26, 2007, the Thompsons received a letter from Respondent (sent by facsimile transmission) acknowledging his receipt of the Thompsons' June 25, 2007, letter. In his letter, Respondent explained that he was "in a bad situation financially" due to circumstances "out of [his] control" related to another project, and he asked the Thompsons to "help [him] resolve[] this matter" by paying the "stucco man" $1,000.00 for materials and an additional $1,000.00 "when [the stucco work] was completed," as well as paying $400.00 for a dumpster to be brought to the Project site (which payments would go towards the monies the Thompsons had to pay for the Project under their contract with GGC). The Thompsons wrote back to Respondent that same day (June 26, 2007), advising him that they would pay for the materials for the stucco work "upon presentation of the invoice, then pay $1,000 for the job on completion as [Respondent had] requested," and that they also would "pay the dumpster charges on completion of the clean-up." Ernest Joseph was the "stucco man" that GGC sent to the Thompsons' home to work on the Project. He last worked on the Project in mid-July 2007. The Thompsons paid Mr. Joseph (by check) a total of $2,000.00 for labor and materials. They also paid Onyx Waste Services (by check) $416.91 to have a dumpster brought to the Project site. Neither GGC, nor anyone acting on its behalf, did any work on the Project after Mr. Joseph left the site in mid-July 2007. The Project was incomplete when the work ceased.2 GGC provided the Thompsons no explanation for the stoppage. In fact, the Thompsons did not hear from GGC at all. The Thompsons were anxious for the Project to be completed, and they did nothing to prevent GGC from accomplishing this objective. After more than 90 consecutive days had passed without any work having been done on the Project, the Thompsons hired another contractor to finish the Project. The Project was ultimately completed. The Thompsons paid $17,540.00 for the additional work that was necessary to complete the Project. The total amount that the Thompsons paid for the Project was $52,329.91 ($32,373 to GGC; $2,000 to Mr. Joseph; $416.91 to Onyx Waste Services; and $17,540.00 to finish the work GGC had failed to do). This was $15,194.91 more than the contract price. Petitioner has incurred a total of $182.90 in investigative and prosecutorial costs in connection with the instant case (excluding costs associated with any attorney's time).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), as alleged in Counts II and IV, respectively, of the Administrative Complaint; (2) suspending his license for a period of two years; (3) fining him $7,500.00; (4) requiring him to pay restitution in the amount of $15,194.91 to the Thompsons; (4) ordering him to reimburse the Department $182.90 for investigative and prosecutorial costs; and (5) dismissing Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 27th day of August, 2008.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints made to the Department for violations of Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes. Sections 489.131(7)(e); 455.225, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 489.129(1), the Construction Industry Licensing Board ("Board") is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for any of the violations set forth in that section. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Tagliaferro has been licensed by the Department as a certified building contractor, having been assigned license number CB C020944 by the Board. His license is currently suspended for failure to make payments pursuant to the terms of a stipulation adopted in a final order of the Board effective June 20, 1994. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Tagliaferro was the licensed qualifying agent for C. J. Construction Corporation. On or about May 15, 1994, Mr. Tagliaferro, d/b/a C. J. Construction Corporation, entered into a contract with Mr. Esteban Garcia to build a second-floor addition to Mr. Garcia's home located at 7541 Northwest 1st Court, Pembroke Pines, Florida. The contract specified that C. J. Construction Corporation would construct an area approximately 24' x 17', and the scope of the work included installing roof shingles to match the existing roof, new windows, a stairway to the new second- floor addition, a new entrance door, new electrical wiring for the second-floor addition, and new plywood flooring over the existing roof. No completion date was specified in the contract. The price stated in the contract for this construction was $17,000, with one-third of the price due on signing the contact and the remainder due as the job progressed. On May 16, 1994, the date the contract was signed, Mr. Tagliaferro received payment of $5,000. The building plans were approved on or about August 11, 1994, and Mr. Tagliaferro began construction immediately thereafter. Payments were made to Mr. Tagliaferro by checks dated August 30, 1994, September 22, 1994, and October 21, 1994, in the amounts of $5,000, $3,000, and $2,000, respectively. Mr. Tagliaferro found that it was necessary to change the dimensions of the addition from 24' x 17' to 24' x 24' to accommodate the stairway to be built to the second floor. Had the addition been built to the original dimensions, the stairway would have covered a window. Mr. Tagliaferro prepared a written change order, with an estimate of $6500 to construct the addition to the increased specifications. Although the change order was never signed, Mr. Tagliaferro framed the addition at 24' x 24'. Mr. Tagliaferro installed the plywood flooring over the existing roof, framed the addition, installed the roof trusses, installed plywood sheeting on the exterior walls and roof, installed the new staircase, and tin-tagged the roof. Mr. Tagliaferro called for an inspection of the framing on October 27, 1994. The framing did not pass inspection because there was no approved copy of the plans on site, as required. Mr. Tagliaferro did not remove the plans from the site prior to the inspection. After the failed inspection on October 27, 1994, a member of Mr. Tagliaferro's family died, and it was necessary for him to go to New York, where he remained for three or four days. Mr. Tagliaferro telephoned Mr. Garcia's daughter, Mirna Espina, and told her that he was in New York to take care of personal matters. When he returned, he contacted the architect to have another set of plans drawn up so he could re-submit them for approval and continue construction. Ms. Espina telephoned Mr. Tagliaferro numerous times after October 27 to ask when he intended to return to complete the construction. She received no answer and left messages on the answering machine. Mr. Tagliaferro did not return her calls. At some point after October 27, Ms. Espina went to the police department and asked that a police officer accompany her to Mr. Tagliaferro's house so she could talk to him and ask when he intended to return to complete the construction. Mr. Tagliaferro answered the door and, when the police officer asked when he was going to finish the construction job, Mr. Tagliaferro explained that he had a problem but intended to return to complete the job. When the police officer told him to tell the truth about whether he intended to complete the job, Mr. Tagliaferro did not respond and closed his door. Mr. Garcia, Ms. Espina, and her husband decided to complete the project themselves in early-to-mid December 1994. Although he eventually obtained another set of plans, Mr. Tagliaferro did not return to the Garcia house to complete the addition. As of October 21, 1994, when he was last on the job, Mr. Tagliaferro had not installed roof shingles, new windows, an entrance door, wirelath or stucco on the exterior walls, electrical wiring, sheet rock with popcorn ceiling, or insulation, and he had not extended the air conditioning ductwork to the new addition. A proposal for the installation of wirelath and stucco, dated December 10, 1994, was prepared by Repairs Unlimited, Inc., and was accepted by Mr. Garcia. On January 11 and 30, 1995, respectively, Mr. Garcia also accepted proposals from Miller Roofing to install asphalt shingles on the roof and from Cayamas Electric Corporation to do the electrical work in the addition. Numerous receipts from building supply stores attest to the materials purchased by Mr. Garcia to complete the project, and a statement dated January 30, 1995, indicates that repair and reinstallation work was performed for Mr. Garcia by Samuel Benson on January 15, 22, and 29. These contracts total $5,421.00. Mr. Garcia hired an attorney on December 16, 1994, and filed suit against Mr. Tagliaferro in circuit court. A hearing was held, which Mr. Tagliaferro attended. On May 18, 1995, a final judgment was entered against Mr. Tagliaferro directing him to pay to Mr. Garcia and Ms. Espina $15,000 and costs of $250, with interest accruing at the rate of eight percent per annum. Mr. Tagliaferro has not satisfied the judgment and has not engaged in any discussions with Mr. Garcia or Ms. Espina to arrange for payment of the judgment. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to support a finding of fact that Mr. Tagliaferro abandoned the Garcia construction project. The only evidence presented to support such a finding was the hearsay-within- hearsay testimony of Ms. Espina that her father, Mr. Garcia, told her that Mr. Tagliaferro told him that he did not intend to complete the project. The evidence is sufficient, however, to permit the inference that Mr. Tagliaferro was precluded from completing work on the project prior to the expiration of ninety days from October 21, 1994, when he last worked on the project. Although the evidence establishes that Mr. Garcia was harmed financially by Mr. Tagliaferro's failure to complete the addition, no evidence was presented by the Department to support a finding of fact that Mr. Tagliaferro caused the financial harm by mismanaging the construction project or by engaging in misconduct. Specifically, the Department presented no evidence to support its assertion that Mr. Tagliaferro completed only thirty percent of the job before Mr. Garcia took over the construction. Therefore, it failed to establish that the amount paid to Mr. Tagliaferro exceeded the percentage of completion. Additionally, the Department presented no evidence to establish the relevant standards of competency in the practice of contracting or the manner in which Mr. Tagliaferro failed to meet those standards in the work done on the Garcia project. It is, however, uncontroverted that Mr. Tagliaferro has not satisfied a judgment entered against him and C. J. Construction Corporation in May 1995 in favor of Mr. Garcia and Ms. Espina.
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: Finding John A. Tagliaferro guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(n) and Section 489.129(1)(r), Florida Statutes; Dismissing Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint; Imposing an administrative fine of $4,000; and Suspending Mr. Tagliaferro's license as a building contractor until he submits proof that he has satisfied the judgment entered against him on May 18, 1995, in Case No. 94-15660 (21), in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 6th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruby Seymour-Barr, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 John A. Tagliaferro, pro se 601 Northwest 103 Avenue No. 357 Pembroke Pines, Florida 33026-6023 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
