Findings Of Fact At all times material here to, Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C009484 by the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent qualified Allstate Roofing & Construction Company with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Since March 1983, Respondent has also been licensed as a registered roofing contractor and qualifies Allstate Roofing & Construction Company with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board under license number RC 0043155. On March 27, 1981, as the qualifier for Allstate Roofing & Construction Company, Respondent entered into a contract with Joe Hill to reroof Hill's home for the contract price of $2,214.10. The contract further provided that workmanship would be unconditionally guaranteed for a period of five years. Respondent in turn entered into a subcontract on April 8, 1981, whereby A & A Roofing Co. subcontracted with Allstate Roofing & Construction Company to perform the work required on the Hill roof for the sum of $1,950, which contract also carried a five-year workmanship unconditional guarantee. In the meantime, Hill and his wife obtained a second mortgage on their home to pay for the replacement of the existing roof, and the mortgage company paid Respondent directly. The subcontractor with whom Respondent contracted for the work on the Hill home was a registered roofing contractor. The existing roof on the Hill home was gravel. Under the contract for replacing the roof on the Hill hoine, asphalt shingles were installed on the portion of the roof which is slanted, and new gravel and tar were installed on the portion of the roof which is flat. After the roof was completely replaced, Hill contacted Respondent to report leaks in the flat part of the roof. In response to that complaint, someone came to the Hill residence and repaired the areas where leakage was reported. Since the roof leaked again, Hill contacted Respondent, and Mr. Davis of A & A Roofing Co. reported to the Hill residence and worked on the roof. In January 1983, Hill's wife contacted Respondent regarding her leaky roof, and once again someone was sent to the Hill residence to effectuate repairs. Although the Hills testified at the formal hearing that the roof still leaked, no evidence was presented to show the precise location of any leak in order o ascertain if the leak was a new" leak or an "old" leak. Both Mr. and Mrs. Hill do admit, however, that Respondent has responded to their complaints every time they have contacted him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed herein and further dismissing the Administrative Complaint against him. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 20th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Clarence. S. Tate 8282 Westernway Circle, Suite 103 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Did Respondent commit the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 11, 2000, and if so, what discipline is appropriate?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified residential contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CR CO13253 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as an individual. On or about November 20, 1993, Respondent entered into a written contractual agreement (contract) with Kevin Watkins (Watkins) to construct a single family residence at 126 Meadow Lark Boulevard, Lot 65, Indian Lake Estates, Florida. The contract price was $333,944.00. Between December 7, 1993, and February 1, 1996, Watkins and Respondent executed 102 addenda to the contract which increased the contract price by approximately $241,874.43, for a total amount of approximately $575.818.43. On or about December 9, 1993, Respondent obtained permit number 93-120l850 from the Polk County Building Department and commenced work on the project. The contract provided that the "project shall be substantially completed on or about 195 days from the date all building permits are issued." However, due to the 100-plus addenda to the contract, it was estimated that an additional 190 days would be needed to complete the project. Additionally, construction ceased on the home for approximately 60 days so that Watkins could explore the possibility of a construction loan. However, due to the extent of completion, the lending institutions decided not to make any construction loans. On or about May 27, 1996, Watkins moved to Florida with the expectations that his home would be completed within a short period of time. (Watkins' recollection was that the home was to be completed in a couple of weeks. Respondent's recollection was that the home was to be completed in a couple of months.) In any event, Respondent did not complete the Watkins home within a couple of weeks or a couple of months. After Watkins moved to Florida, Respondent paid for Watkins to live in a Best Western motel for a few weeks. Subsequently, Respondent moved Watkins into a rental home for which Respondent paid the rent through September 1996. Beginning October 1996 through July 1999, Watkins paid $600.00 per month for a total of $20,400.00 as rent on the rental home. In early 1998, Respondent and Watkins went through the home, identified those items which had not been completed and Respondent made a handwritten list of those items. Respondent failed to complete the items identified on the list. In fact, shortly thereafter, Respondent ceased working on the project and was unresponsive to attempts to contact him. At the time Respondent ceased working on Watkins' home, the home was approximately 75 percent complete. While this estimation of completion may not be totally accurate, it is the best that could be derived based on the evidence presented, including Respondent's testimony to which I gave some credence. Watkins paid Respondent $561,617.91, which represents approximately 97.534 percent of the total contract price plus addenda to the contract. Seventy-five percent of the contract price plus addenda to the contract equals $431,863.82 for an overpayment of $129,754.09. To date, Respondent has not returned any of the money he received from Watkins above the amount completed under the contract. From early 1998, until August 1998, when Watkins had Respondent removed as general contractor on the building permit, Respondent failed to perform any work on the home for a period in excess of 90 days. Respondent contracted with Jack Eggleston to install cabinets in Watkins home. Eggleston performed under the contract but Respondent failed to pay Eggleston in full, requiring Watkins to pay Eggleston $1,200.00. After Watkins' home was partially complete, Respondent advised Watkins that he had the home insured when in fact he did not have the home covered with insurance. While Respondent was building Watkins' home, Respondent and Watkins entered into a joint venture called Contractors of Central Florida to build modular homes sometime after January 1, 1995. Respondent contends that some of the checks Watkins claims as payment under the contract for his home, were in fact reimbursement to Respondent for funds he had advanced for the joint venture. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that any of the checks Watkins claims as payment under the contract for his home were in fact reimbursement for funds advanced by Respondent for the joint venture. Up until the time of the final hearing, the Department had incurred costs for the investigation and prosecution of this matter, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $1,451.28.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and after careful review of the guidelines set forth in Rule 61G4-17.001(8) and (11), Florida Administrative Code, and the circumstances for purpose of mitigation or aggravation of penalty set forth in Rule 61G4-17.002, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Department: Enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h)2., Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty therefor an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00; Enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty therefor an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00; Assessing costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $1,451.28, plus any such further costs which have or may accrue through the taking of final agency action and; Requiring Respondent to pay restitution to Kevin Watkins in the amount of $129,754.09 which represents the amounts accepted by Respondent for work not performed. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202 Ronald J. Powell Post Office Box 7043 Indian Lake Estates, Florida 33855 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Gary Smith d/b/a Sirmons Roofing Company is a roofing contractor registered with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Smith does not hold any license issued by local construction licensing boards which does not license roofing contractors. Smith admitted that he had commenced construction projects without acquiring the appropriate building permits from the local building officials. Calvin Smith identified a contract, Exhibit 2, which he had entered into with Gary Smith d/b/a Sirmons Roofing regarding the repair of the roof of his house. This contract called for the replacement of bad wood, which was understood by the parties to refer to rotten wood planking and rafters. Calvin Smith stated that after construction commenced and the old roof had been removed, his house had suffered rain damage although Gary Smith had advised him that the roof had been dried in. Gary Smith explained that he had in fact laid the requisite felt paper on the roof but that a severe wind and rain storm and occurred immediately following which had destroyed the felt paper. Smith stated that a crew was on the job during the storm at all times trying to keep the felt nailed down and maintain the water-tight integrity of the roof. There were no delays following the removal of the roof in replacing the felt and diligently proceeding with the re-roofing. Several days after the storm the roof had been finished, the plywood ceiling of the family room of Calvin Smith's house was partially removed to permit the insulation to be replaced. At this time Calvin Smith discovered rotten wood which Smith felt should have been removed and replaced by Gary Smith pursuant to their contract. Gary Smith stated that he had found one rotten rafter, but that he had advised Calvin Smith of the fact that it was there and that Calvin Smith realized that he was not replacing it. Gary Smith stated that he had removed and replaced all the rotten wood in the roof and that the rotten wood discovered by Calvin Smith was on that portion of the family room roof which was under the eaves of the pre-existing roof of the house where it could only be seen upon removal of the family room ceiling. Gary Smith further testified that subsequent to finding the rotten wood, Calvin Smith had not permitted him to correct the job and that he had not personally seen the rotten wood, pictures of which Calvin Smith had identified. Calvin Smith identified photographs of the interior and exterior of the roof as repaired by Gary Smith. These photographs were received as Exhibits 3 and 8. Exhibits 7 and 8 were photographs of the exterior of the roof. Exhibit 8 is a photograph of a shingle which was not properly installed. Gary Smith admitted that the shingle was not properly installed but stated that it would have been corrected prior to finishing the job. Exhibit 7 is a photograph showing a course of shingles which does not have the proper overlap. Gary Smith explained that this short run of shingles was necessary to even up or balance the runs on both sides of a hip in the roof because the distance from the eave to the top or peak of the hip was not the same on both sides. Gary Smith also pointed out that in both photographs the shingles are laid so that the bottom of the upper course of shingles comes to or overlaps the lower course of shingles to the top of the tab, causing good contact between the shingles and the adhesive strips. Contrary to the assertion of Calvin Smith that the shingles had been laid in such a manner that the adhesive strips did not touch. Calvin Smith had identified Exhibit 6 as photograph of roof flashing on the family room roof which he asserted was improperly installed. Gary Smith stated that the flashing in Exhibit 6 was installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation and that the roof on the family room had the requisite number of layers of felt and tar as required by the building code. Gary Smith stated that he could not identify the purported location of the underside of the roof depicted in Exhibit 5 and identified by Calvin Smith as being in the middle of the family room. Gary Smith stated that he could not identify the purported location of the underside of roof depicted in Exhibit 5 and identified by Calvin Smith as being in the middle of the family room. Gary Smith stated that he had shown the rotten beam indicated in Exhibit 4 to Calvin Smith and that Calvin Smith had known that he was not replacing the bean because replacement would have required the removal of the family room ceiling as well as the sheeting on the roof over the beam. Gary Smith stated that the wood shown in Exhibit 3 was not rotten but water stained and that the beam was sufficiently solid to hold the weight of the roofing materials on top of it and to nail the new sheeting into. Tommy Thompson, construction inspection supervisor of the City of Jacksonville, inspected the roof of Calvin Smith's home. Thompson found that the shingles had not been lapped properly, that some shingles had been laid so that the ceiling strips would not adhere properly, that rotten rafters and wood had been left, that the correct number of nails had not been placed in the shingles, that metal flashing around the chimney had not been installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, and that one, twelve inch hold had been left in the roof sheeting. Thompson identified the Building Code of the City of Jacksonville and those portions of the code relating to installation of roofing materials. Thompson stated that the items mentioned in the paragraph above constituted violations of the code. Thompson also pointed out that it was a violation of the code to commence construction or repair of a roof without obtaining the requisite building permit. J. R. Bond, Executive Director of the Construction Trades Qualifying Board of the City of Jacksonville, stated that the board did not certify roofers. The ordinances of the City of Jacksonville empower the Construction Trades Qualifying Board to hear complaints against state registered but unlicensed contractors. However, the board lacks authority to take direct action against persons who are state registered but unlicensed. The board may only request that the city building official not issue the individual any further building permits. The building official must exercise his own independent authority and judgment in determining whether to suspend an individual's right to obtain building permits. The building official suspended Smith's privilege to obtain permits without a hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Smith's registration as a roofing contractor be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Telephone: 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Gary A. Smith Sirmons Roofing Company 3845 Edidin Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32211 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 78-1780 GARY A. SMITH d/b/a SIMMONS ROOFING CO., RC 0030047, 3845 Edidin Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32211, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George E. Feld, held certified general contractor license number CG C021801 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Feld has been a licensed contractor in Florida since June 1982. He has qualified George E. Feld and Associates, Inc. under his license and operates the business at 2131 Northeast 205th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. After submitting the low bid, on or about March 1, 1985 George Feld and Associates, Inc. entered into a contract with the City of Tamarac to construct a 5,500 square foot recreation building for the City. The negotiated contract price was $195,950. The contract called for commencement of the project within ten days after the contract was signed and completion by July 27, 1985. Sometime prior to March 20, 1985, Feld met one David P. McCall and Marvin Weiss at a motel in North Miami. McCall was interested in doing work on the Tamarac project. He gave Feld a business card with the name "Arrow Head Development Corporation, Inc." printed on it, and which stated the firm was "state certified" and "licensed" as a general contractor. Feld also noted that Weiss held a general contractor's license, and he assumed that McCall and Weiss were working together. Relying on McCall's card, and later representations by McCall, but without checking with petitioner's office to verify if McCall or Arrow Head were licensed or qualified, Feld agreed to subcontract out the shell and sewer work on the Tamarac project to Arrow Head. To this end, Feld and Arrow Head entered into two contracts on March 20, 1985, for Arrow Head to perform the shell and sewer work. On June 21, 1985 McCall submitted a written "proposal" to Feld for the shell work on the job. The proposal had the following words and numbers typed on its face: "State License Number: #CGC 05961." It was not disclosed whose license number this was. Although McCall denied typing this document (because he does not personally know how to type), he did not deny that it was placed on the document at his direction or with his knowledge. It was not until sometime later that Feld learned that Arrow Head was not qualified by any licensee. Because of his mistaken belief that Arrow Head was qualified, Feld had never qualified that firm. Even so, there was no evidence that Feld intended to allow an unqualified firm to perform the work. Work proceeded on a timely basis as required by the contract. Feld visited the job site daily, and supervised all activities, including those performed by McCall. He routinely inspected the work, verified that it was being done according to specifications, and made corrections where needed. The job specifications called for trusses that were over forty feet in length. Because of this, and pursuant to the South Florida Building Code (Code), it was necessary for the City to hire an engineer to oversee their installation. The City hired one George Fink as engineer to supervise this phase of the project. However, Fink's responsibility was limited to just that, and once the installation was completed, Feld resumed responsibility for the remainder of the job. Trusses are a manufactured roof member and may vary in length, height and pitch. In this case, they were designed in the form of a cathedral roof, and were in excess of forty-seven feet in length. Further, because of the building's design, there were a number of trusses to be installed. The installation of the trusses was begun around 9:00 a.m. on Friday, June 27, 1985 and finished by 2:00 p.m. that same day. As required by the Code, Fink was present and supervised the installation of the trusses on the top of the shell. He confirmed at hearing that they were properly installed. The problem herein arose early that day when Fink had noticed that the building plans did not provide for lateral bracing of the trusses. However, according to Fink, this was not unusual since plans do not normally provide for lateral bracing. Even so, Fink told an unnamed person who "appeared to be the fellow running the erection crew" that lateral bracing should be added to the center and two side core members and that the four trusses on each end needed additional bracing. Fink also suggested to this unnamed individual that sheathing be added "as soon as possible" to the top and outside of the trusses to give added stability and protect them from wind damage and the like. In this regard, at hearing Fink conceded that it was "reasonable" for a contractor to erect trusses one day, and to place sheathing on them the following work day. Fink thought sheathing to be particularly necessary on this job since the trusses were high pitched," "long in length," and there were "no gables or anything in between to ... add any other support." By the end of the work day, the crew had placed the proper bracing on the trusses. However, no sheathing was applied. According to Fink, who was accepted as an expert in this proceeding, a prudent and competent contractor would be aware of the need for sheathing and added bracing because of the potential hazard of high winds caused by late afternoon thunderstorms in South Florida. By failing to place sheathing on the roof, Fink opined that Feld was grossly negligent and incompetent in the practice of construction on the Tamarac project. Sometime on late Sunday night or early Monday morning, most of the trusses on the roof collapsed. Some fell on an electrical wire running to the building. However, no injuries occurred. Only five trusses on the north side of the building remained in place. The City of Tamarac then filed a complaint with petitioner against Feld. The cause of the collapse was not disclosed, and even Fink was unable to state that the lack of sheathing was the cause of the accident. There was no evidence that strong winds or thunderstorms occurred on the night the trusses fell, or that bad weather was predicted when the work day ended on Friday afternoon. Feld acknowledged that no sheathing was placed on the trusses. He attributed this to the fact that the construction crew stopped work at 3:30 on Friday afternoon, and did not return to the job site until the following Monday morning. He intended to install the sheathing the following Monday but by then it was too late. This was in accord with the standard enunciated by Fink that it was not unreasonable for a contractor to erect trusses one day, and to place sheathing on them the following work day. Feld also stated that he was well aware of the need for bracing and sheathing on trusses by virtue of his long experience in the construction business. Feld hinted, but did not prove, that McCall may have been responsible for the accident because of bad blood between the two. In any event, he doubted that wind would have caused the trusses in question to fall. Finally, Feld pointed out that, even though city inspectors were present, no one had come to him on Friday afternoon and said the trusses might collapse over the weekend without sheathing. Feld is a graduate of the University of Buenos Aires with a degree in architecture, and has been engaged in the construction/architecture business for twenty-two years. He presently is an instructor of construction at Miami-Dade Community College. There is no evidence he has ever been the subject of a disciplinary action by the Board on any other occasion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint against George E. Feld be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1987.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, John Arena, was a certified residential contractor, the qualifying agent for Classic Industries, Inc. and held license number CR C021139 from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The President and sole owner of Classic was Anthony Manganelli. Mr. Manganelli was also the manager of Classic and the principal from whom Mr. Arena received his information about the contracts entered into by Classic. On or about July 30, 1988, someone contacted Ms. Solange Gaston of Hollywood, Florida, by telephone, and asked her if her roof needed repair. The solicitor represented himself as an associate of Classic and offered to come out and inspect her roof. Ms. Gaston, believing her roof was in disrepair, agreed to have the inspection completed and entered into a contract with Mr. Carlo Mangano, representing himself as an agent of Classic, to do the repair. With Ms. Gaston's agreement, the tile on her roof was replaced with shingle roofing and certain other repairs were attempted. A letter to Petitioner from the Chief Permit Processor of the City of Hollywood, Florida indicates that no roofing permit was issued for Ms. Gaston's address. The roof was leaking prior to the repair and continues to leak. Ms. Gaston paid the complete contract price of $3,500 to Classic, but has been unable to locate Mr. Mangano or to have her roof repair completed. In her attempts to achieve satisfaction, Ms. Gaston contacted Classic and asked to speak with someone in charge. She was under the impression that she was speaking with Mr. Arena; however, she never spoke to Mr. Arena. In fact, Mr. Arena was not aware of the contract with Ms. Gaston until the instant complaint was filed against him. Mr. Arena does not know Mr. Mangano. When Mr. Arena became aware of the problem, he attempted to contact Mr. Manganelli, but was told that Mr. Manganelli had moved. Ultimately, Mr. Arena located Mr. Manganelli at a new address. According to Mr. Arena, Mr. Manganelli produced a copy of what appeared to be a contract with Ms. Gaston which has the signature of Carlo Mangano on it, but it is marked indicating that Ms. Gaston's credit was turned down. Mr. Manganelli told Mr. Arena that Classic had not undertaken the job due to the refusal of credit. With that representation, Mr. Arena was under the impression that the work had not been done, as was the custom of dealing for Classic when credit was denied. The two papers purporting to be contracts, one which Ms. Gaston acknowledged as being the one which she signed and the other being the one which Mr. Arena obtained from Mr. Manganelli as the actual contract between Ms. Gaston and Classic through Mr. Mangano, appear to be altered. Although both documents contain the same information, including the date, parties, addresses, work to be completed and price quoted, the portion of the copy indicating the price is written in Arabic numerals on Mr. Arena's copy and by words on Ms. Gaston's copy. Mr. Arena's copy also has the indication that credit was turned down on it, although the cancelled checks paid to Classic by Ms. Gaston were received into evidence. It was Mr. Arena's arrangement with Mr. Manganelli that Mr. Arena was to be informed of every contract into which Classic entered. In this way, Mr. Arena knew which sites he was to supervise. Since he was not advised about the roofing job for Ms. Gaston, he made no attempt to supervise it and after he became aware that the credit for the job had been disallowed, he was under the reasonable impression that the job was not done by Classic. Further, he did not know Mr. Mangano, nor did he believe that Mr. Mangano had the authority to bind Classic. Mr. Arena believes that Mr. Mangano may have obtained a blank contract form of Classic and misrepresented himself to Ms. Gaston as an agent for Classic. Petitioner asserted, however, that Mr. Arena, nevertheless, was responsible for the job and that Classic did perform the job. Neither Mr. Manganelli nor Mr. Mangano were present or testified at the hearing. Given Mr. Arena's demeanor at the hearing and the conflicting and altered state of the alleged contract forms, Mr. Arena's testimony is deemed credible, and the proof failed to demonstrate clearly that Classic actually attempted to repair Ms. Gaston's roof or that Mr. Arena was responsible for the attempted repair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint filed in this case against Respondent, John Arena. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June, 1990. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of June, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Harris Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 341 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John D. Arena 5961 Southwest 13th Street Plantation, Florida 33317 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues in this hearing, Respondent was a licensed building contractor, whose license is No. CBC014467. His certification as an individual by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board was initially dated August 16, 1979. In February, 1981, he requested his second license be registered qualifying Jeff Webb Homes, Inc.; and in September, 1982, the license was changed from Jeff Webb Homes, Inc., to Intervest Construction, Inc. On April 23, 1981, Anna Ray McClellan contracted with Regency Central, Inc., for the construction and purchase of a single family residence located at Lot 5, Devonwood Subdivision, Volusia County, Florida. David L. Martin is president of Regency Central, Inc., and neither he nor Regency Central, Inc., are or have ever been registered or certified by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board to engage in the business of contracting in the State of Florida. On June 5, 1981, Respondent applied for a residential construction permit for Lot 5, Devonwood Subdivision, listing Regency Central, Inc., as the owner of the property, and himself, with License No. CBC014467, as the contractor. Actual contracting for the construction at Lot 5, Devonwood Subdivision, was accomplished by Regency Central, Inc. Three separate addenda to the construction/purchase contract calling for modifications to the specifications of construction were signed, not by Respondent, but by David L. Martin for Regency Central, Inc. Major subcontracts on the construction including plumbing, electrical, and heating and air conditioning, were entered into between the subcontractors and Regency Central, Inc., and not Respondent. Subcontractors looked to Regency Central for payment, and not to Respondent. A claim of lien filed on ,September 9, 1981, for central air conditioning and heating work on the property in question reflects the work was done under contract with Regency Central, Inc., David L. Martin, President. During construction of the house, Ms. McClellan visited the construction site several times a week at different hours of the day. She recalls seeing Respondent in the area only twice, the first time being the day the contract for purchase was signed, and the second being the day the slab was poured. Her dealings at the site were with the supervisor, Dan Haley, who indicated to her that he worked for Regency Central, Inc. Respondent was interviewed by Philip T. Hundemann, an investigator for the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, in late March, 1982, at Respondent's home. During the course of the interview, Respondent admitted that he met David L. Martin when Martin rented office space in a building that Respondent had constructed and owned. During the course of conversations, Martin suggested to Respondent that he, Martin, had ninety-nine lots available for building and that if Respondent would pull the construction permit for the Lot 5 project, he would get a contract from Martin to build on the other ninety- nine lots. Respondent admitted that he did not supervise the contract, that he did pull the permit, and that he was in violation of the law and had prostituted his license. His defense was, at that time, that he was hungry to get a big construction contract with Martin. Though after he pulled the permits his agreement was to work on the site for the rate of ten dollars per day with the supervisor, Mr. Haley, he was there only infrequently. Respondent now modifies the admissions made previously to Mr. Hundemann. He now states he was heavily involved with the construction project on a daily basis either in his office or on the construction site, not only as a contractor, but also as sales broker. While he admits what he did was in violation of the law and was foolish, he did not intend to break the law. Respondent's involvement with Ms. McClellan's project was not as contractor as indicated in the permit he pulled. He had very little contact with that project until Martin abandoned the project and left the area.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's, Dominic D'Alexander's, license as a certified building contractor be suspended for one year, but that, upon the payment of a $500 administrative fine, the execution of the suspension be deferred for a period of three years, with provision for automatic recission. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 21st day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Dominic D'Alexander Post Office Box 4580 South Daytona, Florida 32021 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue DOAH Case No. 89-3902, the Barona and Carrow Complaints Whether Respondent violated Florida Statutes Section 489.129(1)(d), by willfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state or of any municipalities or counties thereof. Whether Respondent violated Florida Statutes Section 489.129(1)(m), by being guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. DOAH Case No. 90-1900, the Grantz, Victor, Beckett, Maffetonne, and Wolfe Complaints Whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(m), (j), and 489.105(4), and 489.119, Florida Statutes, by being guilty of gross negligence, incompetence, and/or misconduct. Whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(h), (m), (j), and 489.119, and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of financial mismanagement or misconduct. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by wilful or deliberate violation or disregard of applicable local building codes and laws. Whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(m), (j), 489.119, and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes, by failing to properly supervise contracting activities he was responsible for as qualifying agent, which supervisory deficiency also reflected gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. Whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(m), and (j), Florida Statutes, by giving a guarantee on a job to a consumer and thereafter failing to reasonably honor said guarantee in violation of Florida Statutes. DOAH Case No. 90-1901, the Klokow Complaint Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by wilfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state or any municipalities or counties thereof. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of fraud or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. DOAH Case No. 90-1902, the Meister Complaint Whether the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by failure to obtain a permit. DOAH Case No. 91-7493, the Antonelli Complaint Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. DOAH Case No. 91-7951, the Insurance, Palomba, Romanello and Marin Complaints The Insurance Complaint Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by violating Section 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by making misleading, deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of his profession. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by wilfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state or any municipalities or counties thereof. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by violating Section 455.227(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by intentionally violating a Board rule. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by being found guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The Palomba Complaint Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by being found guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The Romanello Complaint Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by being found guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The Marin Complaint Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by being found guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. DOAH Case No. 92-0370, the Pappadoulis Complaint Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by committing financial misconduct. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by committing gross negligence, incompetence and misconduct in the practice of contracting.
Findings Of Fact Pre-Hearing Admissions 3/ Admissions Applicable to All Cases Respondent is currently licensed as a contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent's current license number from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board is CG C040139. Respondent is licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as a certified general contractor. Respondent holds Florida Certified Roofing License No. CC-042792. Respondent is the qualifying agent for Tropical Home Industries, Inc. As qualifying agent for Tropical Home Industries, Inc., Respondent is responsible for all work performed. DOAH Case No. 89-3902 Respondent was licensed as set forth in items 1, 2, 3 and 4 above at the time of the job alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Exhibit "A", attached to the Request for Admissions 4/ is a true and correct copy of the contract between Sarah S. Carrow and the firm Respondent qualified at the time the contract was executed. As a qualifier for Tropical Home Industries, Inc., Respondent was responsible in his capacity as a certified general and roofing contractor for all work performed by Tropical Home Industries, Inc., pursuant to its contract with Sarah S. Carrow. Pursuant to the contract between Sarah S. Carrow and Tropical Home Industries, Inc., all work under said contract was to be completed in three (3) to six (6) weeks. Respondent, acting through Tropical Home Industries, Inc., failed to complete all work under the contract with Sarah S. Carrow within six (6) weeks after work was commenced. Respondent, acting through Tropical Home Industries, Inc., failed to obtain a final inspection of the work under the contract with Sarah S. Carrow prior to the building permit's expiration date. Broward County, Florida, has adopted the South Florida Building Code as its local ordinance governing residential construction. Respondent's failure to obtain a timely final inspection of the work performed pursuant to the contract between Tropical Home Industries, Inc., and Sarah S. Carrow is a violation of Section 305.2 of the South Florida Building Code. Section 1405.1 of the South Florida Building Code requires installation of either a window or vent fan in each bathroom. Section 3407.9(a) of the South Florida Building Code requires that flashing be installed on plumbing vent pipes which are installed through the roof. Any problems or deficiencies in the work performed by Tropical Home Industries, Inc., pursuant to its contract with Sarah S. Carrow were caused by employees and/or subcontractors of Tropical Home Industries, Inc. DOAH Case Nos. 89-3902, 90-1900, 90-1901, and 90-1902 DOAH Case No. 89-3902 The Baronas' house is located at 1251 Westchester Drive East, West Palm Beach, Florida 33417. Respondent contracted with the Baronas as the qualifying agent of Tropical Home Industries, Inc. The Baronas' house is located within Palm Beach County. Palm Beach County is the appropriate Building Department under which all inspections were to have been performed. DOAH Case No. 90-1901 On or about December 5, 1988, Respondent contracted with Mel Klokow, acting for Linda Klokow ("Klokow"), for the renovation of a screen porch with a roof to her home. Respondent contracted with Klokow as a qualifying agent of Tropical Home Industries, Inc. Permit No. 88-8085 was issued by the local building department. The work at the Klokow residence did not pass final inspection. DOAH Case No. 90-1902 In December of 1987, Respondent contracted to close in a screen porch for Janet Meister ("Meister"). Respondent contracted with Meister as the qualifying agent for Tropical Home Industries, Inc. Respondent failed to obtain a permit for the work performed at the Meister's. Respondent's failure to obtain a permit for the Meister job violated local building codes and Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes. DOAH Case No. 90-1900 The Grantz home is located at 10878 Granite Street, Boca Raton, Florida. The approximate amount of the contract price with the Grantz was $1,890.00. Respondent contracted for the Grantz job as a qualifying agent of Tropical Home Industries, Inc. Respondent began work at the Grantz residence on or about May 10, 1989. The work at the Grantz residence failed final inspection on July 12, 1989. Respondent wilfully violated applicable local building codes and laws on the Grantz project. Respondent wilfully disregarded local building codes and laws in connection with the Grantz project. Respondent deliberately violated applicable local building codes and laws in connection with the Grantz project. Respondent deliberately disregarded applicable local building codes and laws in connection with the Grantz project. On or about April 12, 1989, and April 17, 1989, Respondent contracted with Stephen Victor ("Victor") to install sliding glass doors at his home. The Victor residence is located at 9768 Majorca Place, Boca Raton, Florida. The contract price with Victor was $3,293.00. Respondent contracted with Victor as a qualifying agent of Tropical Home Industries, Inc. Victor paid a total deposit of $670.00 to Respondent. Respondent never began work at the Victor residence. On or about April 17, 1989, Respondent contracted with Vinton Beckett ("Beckett") to install windows at her home. The Beckett residence is located at 2501 N.W. 41st Avenue, Unit 302, Lauderhill, Florida. The contract price with Beckett was $1,684.00. Respondent contracted with Beckett as a qualifying agent of Tropical Home Industries, Inc. On or about October 29, 1988, Respondent contracted with Thomas and Sherry Maffetonne (the "Maffetonnes") to construct a patio enclosure at their home. The Maffetonne's residence is located at 22980 Old Inlet Bridge Drive, Boca Raton, Florida. The contract price for the work to be performed at the Maffetonnes was $4,350.00. Respondent contracted with the Maffetonnes as a qualifying agent for Tropical Home Industries, Inc. A five-year warranty on materials was given by Respondent for the work to be performed at the Maffetonne's. A one-year warranty on labor was given by Respondent for the work performed at the Maffetonne's. On or about June 6, 1989, Respondent contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Morton Wolfe (the "Wolfes") to install windows at their home. The Wolfe's residence is located at 7267 Huntington Lane, #204, Delray Beach, Florida. Respondent contracted with the Wolfes as the qualifying agent of Tropical Home Industries, Inc. Respondent failed to obtain a timely permit or call for required inspections at the Wolfe residence. DOAH Case No. 91-7951 On June 21, 1990, Tropical's general liability insurance coverage (policy number 891006GL327), produced by Steven Adams and Associates, Inc., (hereinafter "Adams and Associates") and afforded by Guardian P & C Insurance Company, expired. On July 17, 1990, Tropical issued a check to Adams and Associates in the amount of $2,475.00 to obtain general liability and workers' compensation insurance. Upon receipt of the check, Adams and Associates issued a Certificate of Insurance to the Davie (Florida) Building Department indicating that Tropical had general liability (policy number GL 235810) and workers' compensation insurance in force through July 17, 1991. After said Certificate of Insurance was issued, Tropical stopped payment on the check issued to Adams and Associates. Tropical failed to issue an additional check or remit payment of any kind, resulting in both the general liability and workers' compensation insurance being canceled, effective July17, 1990. In September of 1990, a Certificate of Insurance was submitted to the Davie Building Department indicating that Tropical had general liability insurance in effect from September21, 1990, until September 21, 1991. Said certificate had been altered in that the issue, effective, and expiration dates had been updated to reflect that the policy coverage was current and in force. The policy listed on the certificate (number 891006GL327, produced by Adams and Associates with coverage being afforded by Guardian P & C Insurance Company) expired on June21,1990, and was never renewed or kept in force after that date. The Davie Building Department had no other certificates or records indicating that Tropical had insurance coverage. Between July 17, 1990, and April 8, 1991, Tropical obtained five (5) building permits from the Davie Building Department. At no time during the aforementioned period did Tropical have general liability insurance, thereby violating Section 302.1(b) of the South Florida Building Code which requires that building permit applicants be qualified in accordance with PartI of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Licensees are required to maintain public liability insurance at all times as provided by rules promulgated pursuant to Part I of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Construction Industry Licensing Board records indicate that Tropical has general liability insurance coverage through Equity Insurance (hereinafter "Equity") of Hollywood, Florida. Effective June 8, 1988, Tropical's insurance with Equity was canceled. On February 20, 1991, Tropical entered into an agreement with Michael and Margaret Palomba (hereinafter "Palombas") to perform enclosure and remodeling work at the Palombas' residence located at 130 North East 5th Court, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33334. The approximate contract price was $11,978.00. On March 13, 1991, Tropical received a $2,994.50 deposit from the Palombas. On March 25, 1991, Tropical obtained a permit for the project from the Broward County Building Department. Subsequent to receiving the permit, Tropical removed an interior closet from the area that was to be remodeled. Subsequent to receiving the permit, Tropical removed interior plaster from the area that was to be remodeled. Subsequent to receiving the permit, Tropical removed exterior doors from the area that was to be remodeled. Tropical then stopped work stating that rotten wood had been discovered, and requested an additional $2,800.00 to continue with and complete the project. Tropical refused to perform any additional work without the Palombas agreeing to the added cost. Tropical failed to continue with the project pursuant to the original agreement. Tropical refused to continue with the project pursuant to the original agreement. Tropical failed to return any monies to the Palombas. In May 1991, the Palombas hired a second contractor, Dan Sturgeon, to complete the project for $13,830.00. On or about July 11, 1990, Tropical entered into an agreement with Don Romanello (hereinafter "Romanello") to construct a screen room on an existing slab at Romanello's residence located in Boca Raton, Florida. The contract price was $9,500.00. Tropical received $4,800.00 in payments from Romanello, but failed to obtain a permit or perform any work pursuant to the agreement. Tropical has failed to return any portion of Romanello's payments. Tropical refused to communicate with Romanello. Based on the preceding, Tropical committed misconduct in the practice of contracting. On or about June 23, 1990, Tropical entered into an agreement with Marcelina Marin (hereinafter "Marin") to construct a screen room at Marin's residence located in Broward County, Florida, for $4,021.00. Tropical received a $2,000.00 deposit from Marin at the time the agreement was entered into. Tropical failed to perform any work under the terms of the agreement. Tropical has failed to return Marin's deposit. Tropical has refused to return Marin's deposit. Based on the preceding, Tropical committed misconduct in the practice of contracting. DOAH Case No. 91-7493 On July 2, 1988, Respondent contracted with Anthony Antonelli ("Antonelli") to construct an aluminum roof over the patio and gutters of his residence at 9303 Laurel Green Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida. The price of the contract was $2,016.00. Antonelli paid a deposit of $500.00 to Tropical Home Industries. Respondent informed Antonelli that he would not be able to perform the work at the contracted price. Respondent never performed any work at the Antonelli's home. Respondent canceled the contract with Antonelli. Respondent failed to return the deposit paid by Antonelli to Tropical Home Industries. Testimony at Final Hearing Facts Applicable to All Cases Respondent is, and has been at all times hereto, a certified general and roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CG C040139 and CC 2042792. For all contracts and jobs referenced in all of the administrative complaints in these consolidated cases, Respondent acted through the contracting business with which he was associated and for which he was responsible in his capacity as a licensed contractor. DOAH Case No. 89-3902, The Barona and Carrow Complaints Respondent contracted with Rhonda Barona to build an addition to her home at 1251 Westchester Dr. East., West Palm Beach, Florida, for approximately $5,124. The work performed at the Barona residence took an unreasonable amount of time to complete. The permit issued to perform the work at the Barona residence was canceled and Respondent failed to obtain a final inspection. Respondent contracted with Sarah Carrow to build an addition at her home located at 1421 N. 70th Avenue, Hollywood, Florida, for approximately $14,460.60. Respondent allowed the permit to expire and failed to obtain required inspections at the Carrow residence. Respondent failed to fully comply with applicable local codes by failing to install a window or vent fan in the bathroom. DOAH Case No. 90-1900, The Grantz, Victor, Beckett, Maffetonne and Wolfe Complaints On or about March 31, 1989, Respondent contracted with John and Lori Grantz to install windows at 10878 Granite Street, Boca Raton, Florida, for the amount of $1,890.00. Work at the Grantz residence began on or about May 10, 1989. At the time work began, no permit had been obtained. A late permit was obtained on June 15, 1989, in violation of local codes. The work performed by Respondent at the Grantz residence failed final inspection on July 12, 1989, because the structure was not constructed as for the intended use. The windows which were installed were designed as a temporary structure, removable in cases of severe weather and not as a permanent enclosure. On or about April 12, 1989, and April 17, 1989, Respondent contracted with Stephen Victor ("Victor") to install sliding glass doors and windows at 9768 Majorca Place, Boca Raton, Florida, for the total amount of $3,293.00. Victor paid Tropical a total deposit of $670.00, but work never began. On or about April 17, 1989, Respondent contracted with Vinton Beckett ("Beckett") to install windows at 2501 N.W. 41st St., Unit 808, Lauderhill, Florida, in the amount of $1,684. A five-year warranty on materials and a one-year warranty on labor were provided to Beckett by Tropical. Respondent failed to obtain a timely permit or call for required inspections in violation of local law. Respondent failed to correct defects and deficiencies in the work performed at the Beckett residence in a reasonable amount of time. On or about October 29, 1988, Respondent contracted with Thomas and Sharee Maffetonne to construct a patio enclosure at 22980 Old Inlet Bridge Drive, Boca Raton, Florida, for the amount of $4,350.00. A five-year warranty on materials and a one-year warranty on labor were given. Respondent failed to correct defects and deficiencies in the work on the Maffetonne residence in a reasonable amount of time. On or about June 6, 1989, Respondent contracted with Morton Wolfe to install windows at 7267 Huntington Lane, #204, Delray Beach, Florida, for the amount of $1,668.13. Respondent failed to obtain a timely permit or call for required inspections at the Wolfe residence in violation of local codes. DOAH Case No. 90-1901 The Klokow Complaint On or about December 5, 1989, Respondent contracted with Mel Klokow, acting for Linda Klokow, for the construction of a screen porch with a roof to her home at 5292 N.E. 10th Terr., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, for the sum of $4,473.00. Permit number 88-8085 was issued by the local building department. The work performed at the Klokow residence initially failed to pass the final inspection, and the Respondent failed to return to correct the code violations in a reasonable amount of time. DOAH Case Number 90-1902 The Meister Complaint In December of 1987, Respondent contracted to close in a screen porch for Janet Meister. Respondent failed to obtain a permit for the work performed, which is a violation of local building codes. DOAH Case Number 91-7493 The Antonelli Complaint On July 2, 1988, Respondent contracted with Anthony Antonelli ("Antonelli") to construct an aluminum roof over the patio and gutters at his residence at 9303 Laurel Green Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida. The price of the contract for the work to be performed at the Antonelli residence was $2,016.00. Antonelli remitted a deposit of $500 to the Respondent. Respondent informed Antonelli that he would not be able to perform said job for the contracted price and no work ever began. Respondent canceled the contract with Antonelli and failed to return the deposit to Antonelli. DOAH Case Number 91-7951 The Insurance, Palomba, Romanello and Marin Complaints On June 21, 1990, Tropical's general liability insurance coverage, policy number (891006GL327), produced by Stephen Adams & Associates, Inc., ("Adams & Associates") and afforded by Guardian Property & Casualty Company, expired. On July 17, 1990, Tropical issued a check to Adams & Associates in the amount of $2,475.00 to obtain and/or renew general liability and workers' compensation insurance. Upon receipt of the check, Adams & Associates issued a certificate of insurance to the Davie Building Department in Davie, Florida, indicating that Tropical had general liability (policy number 235810) and workers compensation insurance in force through July 17, 1991. After said certificate of insurance was issued, Tropical stopped payment on the check issued to Adams & Associates. Tropical failed to issue an additional check or remit payment of any kind resulting in the general liability and workers compensation insurance being canceled, effective July 17, 1990. In about September 1990, a certificate of insurance was submitted to the Davie Building Department indicating that Tropical had general liability insurance in effect from September 21, 1990, until September 21, 1991. Said certificate had been altered in that the issue, effective and expiration dates had been updated to reflect that the policy coverage was current and in force. The policy listed on the certificate (number 891006GL327), produced by Adams & Associates and afforded by Guardian Property & Casualty Company, expired on June 21, 1990, and was never renewed or kept in force after that date. The Davie Building Department has no other certificates or records indicating that Tropical has insurance coverage. Between July 17, 1990, and April 8, 1991, Tropical obtained five (5) building permits from the Davie Building Department. At no time during the aforementioned period did Tropical have general liability insurance thereby violating Section 302.1(b) of the South Florida Building Code which requires that building permit applicants be qualified in accordance with Part I of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Licensees are required to maintain public liability insurance at all times as provided by rules promulgated pursuant to Part I of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Construction Industry Licensing Board ("CILB") records indicate that Tropical has general liability insurance coverage through Equity Insurance Company ("Equity") of Hollywood, Florida. Effective June 8, 1988, Tropical's insurance with Equity was canceled. On February 20, 1991, Tropical entered into an agreement with Michael and Margaret Palomba (the "Palombas") to perform enclosure and remodeling work at the Palomba's residence located at 130 N.E. 5th Ct., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33334. The approximate contract price was $11,978.00. On March 13, 1991, Tropical received a $2,994.50 deposit from the Palombas. On March 25, 1991, Tropical obtained a permit for the project from the Broward County Building Department. Subsequent to receiving the permit, Tropical removed an interior closet and exterior doors from the area that was to be remodeled. Tropical then stopped work stating that rotten wood had been discovered, and requested an additional $2,800.00 to continue with and complete the project. Tropical refused to perform any additional work without the Palombas agreeing to the added cost. Tropical failed or refused to continue with the project pursuant to the original agreement and failed to return any monies to the Palombas. In May, 1991, the Palombas hired a second contractor, Dan Sturgeon, to complete the project for $13,000.00. 156. Based on the foregoing, Tropical committed misconduct in the practice of contracting. On or about July 11, 1990, Tropical entered into an agreement with Don and Norma Romanello (the "Romanellos") to construct a screened room on an existing slab at the Romanello's residence located in Boca Raton, Florida. The contract price was $9,500. Tropical received a $4,800.00 payment from the Romanellos but failed to perform any work pursuant to the agreement. Tropical has failed or refused to return any portion of the Romanellos payments and has refused to communicate with the Romanellos. Based on the preceding, Tropical committed misconduct in the practice of contracting. On or about June 23, 1990, Tropical entered into an agreement with Marcelina Marin to construct a screened room at Marin's residence located in Broward County, Florida for $4,021.00 Tropical received a $2,000.00 deposit at the time the agreement was entered into. Tropical failed to perform any work under the terms of the agreement, and has failed or refused to return Marin's deposit. Based on the preceding, Tropical committed misconduct in the practice of contracting. DOAH Case Number 92-0370 The Pappadoulis Complaint On or about February 11, 1990, the Respondent contracted with John Pappadoulis ("Pappadoulis") to remodel a Florida room for the agreed upon amount of $11,448.00 at his residence located at 983 Southwest 31st Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Respondent received a deposit of $648.00, but never obtained a permit nor began work. The Respondent failed or refused to return Pappadoulis' deposit. John Pappadoulis has since passed away. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances Monetary Damages Several of the customers in these cases suffered monetary damages. The Baronas had to hire an attorney to deal with the Respondent. The Baronas also incurred additional costs in the work they performed to complete the contract. John and Lori Grantz also suffered monetary damages due to their dealings with the Respondent. The work at the Grantz residence was never completed by the Respondent. The Respondent filed a lien on the Grantz property and also filed a lawsuit to receive the full amount of the contract price. The Grantz had to hire an attorney to obtain legal advice and to defend the lawsuit. The Grantz prevailed in that lawsuit and a judgment was entered requiring the Respondent to refund the $500.00 cash deposit. The Grantz also spent at least $150.00 on attorney fees. The deposit money was never returned and none of their costs were ever reimbursed by the Respondent. Steven Victor also sustained monetary damages in his dealings with the Respondent. Victor paid the Respondent $670.00 as a deposit. No work was ever performed. After requesting the return of his deposit money and failing to receive it, Victor filed a civil action against the Respondent. Judgment was entered in favor of Victor, but the judgment was never paid. The Maffetonnes also sustained monetary damages in their dealings with the Respondent. The Respondent agreed to refund a portion of the contract money to the Maffetonnes due to a problem with the carpet he installed incorrectly, but failed to ever refund any money. The Maffetonnes therefore paid for goods which were defective, and never received a compensatory credit. Klokow also sustained monetary damages in his dealings with the Respondent Because of continuing roof problems, Klokow had to hire an independent roofing expert to inspect the roof and prepare a report. Mr. and Mrs. Palomba also sustained monetary damage due to their dealings with the Respondent. When the Respondent abandoned the Palomba job, the Palombas were forced to hire a second contractor at a higher contract price. The Respondent's actions also caused monetary damages to Antonelli, Pappadoulis, Marin, and Romanello. In each case, the homeowner paid a deposit to the Respondent, and the Respondent failed to ever perform work or return any of the deposit money. The Antonellis paid $500.00, Pappadoulis paid $648.00, Marin paid $2,000.00, and Romanello paid $4,800.00. Actual Job-Site Violations of Building Codes or Conditions Exhibiting Gross Negligence, Incompetence, or Misconduct by the Licensee Several of the jobs involved in these cases had actual job site violations of building codes or conditions which exhibited gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct by the Respondent which had not been resolved as of the date of the formal hearing. At the Barona residence, the framing inspection failed twice before finally being passed a third time; the lath inspection failed three times before finally passing on the fourth time; and the final inspection failed and was never satisfactorily completed by the Respondent. At the Carrow residence, the Respondent failed to install a window or vent fan in the bathroom of the room addition which he installed. In addition to the building code violation, the work performed was incompetent as the structure installed leaked for many months. Further, the original permit expired prior to a final inspection ever being obtained. At the Grantz residence, the Respondent exhibited incompetence and misconduct by installing windows that he knew or should have known were unsuitable for the purposes specified by the customer. Severity of the Offense The large number of violations established in these cases indicates that the Respondent is a serious threat to the public. These violations establish that the Respondent had a pattern of failing to conduct any meaningful supervision of work in progress. And perhaps most serious of all is his frequent act of soliciting deposits for projects he apparently had no intention of even beginning, much less finishing. This latter practice borders on constituting some form of larceny. Danger to the Public The Respondent is a danger to the public in two ways. First, he is a financial threat to the public, most significantly by his practice of taking deposits for jobs he apparently did not intend to perform. Second, he is a threat to public safety, because the work he performs is often done in a haphazard, careless manner. The Number of Repetitions of Offenses As is obvious from the findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order, the Respondent is guilty of numerous repeated offenses which occurred over a period of approximately three years. The Respondent's numerous offenses are indicative of an attitude of contempt or disregard for the requirements of the applicable rules and statutes. Number of Complaints Against Respondent The charges in these cases are based on fifteen separate customer complaints to the Department of Professional Regulation regarding the Respondent. Further, the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board received four complaints from homeowners regarding the Respondent 5/ and the Broward County Consumer Affairs Department received twenty-nine complaints regarding the Respondent. 6/ Such a large number of complaints indicates that the Respondent's shortcomings were not isolated events, but represent a recurring problem. The Length of Time the Licensee Has Practiced The Respondent was first licensed as a state general contractor in 1987. He obtained his roofing contractor license shortly thereafter. The Respondent's licenses were placed under emergency suspension in August of 1991. Damage to the Customers The damages, monetary and otherwise, suffered by the Respondent's customers has already been addressed. In addition, all of the Respondent's customers mentioned in the findings of fact suffered a great deal of aggravation, stress, and frustration in dealing with the Respondent. Penalty and Deterrent Effect In these cases, the proof submitted demonstrates that no penalties short of revocation of the Respondent's licenses and imposition of the maximum amount of fines will act as a deterrent to the Respondent and others and as appropriate punishment for the many violations established by the record in these cases. Efforts at Rehabilitation There is no persuasive evidence in the record of these cases that the Respondent has become, or is likely to become, rehabilitated. To the contrary, the greater weight of the evidence is to the effect that the Respondent is unwilling or unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the statutes and rules governing the practice of contracting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, IT IS RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of all of the violations charged in each Administrative Complaint and Amended Administrative Complaint as noted in the conclusions of law, and that the Respondent be disciplined as follows: The Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 for each of the twenty-nine counts of violations charged and proved, for a grand total of $145,000.00 in administrative fines; The Respondent's license numbers CG C040139 and CC C042792 be revoked; and The Respondent be required to pay restitution to the following Complainants in the following amounts: Steven Victor - $670.00; John Grantz - $650.00; Don Romanello - $4,800.00; Marcelina Marin - $2,000.00; Anthony Antonelli - $500.00; John Pappadoulis' next of kin - $648.00. All restitution shall earn 12% interest per annum from the date the Complainants paid their deposit to Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of October, 1992. MICHAEL M. 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 21st day of October, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was the holder of general contractor's license number CG C007235, and certified residential contractor's license number CR C006769. On or about January 6, 1976, Respondent entered into a Building Agreement with Walter and Ellen Scott (hereinafter "owners") for construction of a residence to be located at 10244 Deerwood Club Road in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Among the provisions contained in this agreement was the following: [Respondent] will construct house for actual Construction Costs plus $10,000 profit. Addendum to contract Number 19 contains construction estimate sheet and allowance sheet which is guaranteed by [Respondent] not to exceed $85,000, plus $10,000 profit. All construction costs above $85,000 will be absorbed by contractor resulting from faulty workmanship or incorrect overall estimate. Additional costs resulting from exceeding allowances or phases not covered by estimate, (Wallpaper, Light fixtures, etc.), will be paid by purchaser. [Respondent] will be compensated at $2,500.00 out of each of the last four construction draws. Purchaser will be refunded in difference of construction under $85,000.00. Purchaser has the right to examine cost of construction at any stage to determine how close cost [sic] are running to estimate. (Emphasis added.) In addition, the Building Agreement contains a listing of allowances for various items such as carpet, flooring, wallpaper, doors, fireplaces, appliances, plumbing fixtures, wiring and windows. These provisions of the contract deal with standard items to be included in the construction, absent some request and agreement between the parties to specific changes. With respect to changes, the agreement provides specifically that: Should the Purchaser at any time during the progress of said residence require any alterations to or deviations from, additions to, or omissions, in said Agreement, which are acceptable to the Contractor, they shall have the right and power to make such change or changes when practicable, and the same shall in no way make void the Agreement; but the differences shall be added to, or deducted from the amount of the Agreement as the case may be, by a fair and reasonable evaluation . . . (emphasis added.) Finally, the Building Agreement also provides that Respondent was to use his best effort to deliver the completed residence on or about 180 days from the start of construction, which, by terms of the agreement, is defined as the date on which footings are poured or the day rough plumbing was begun. Although Respondent obtained a building permit for construction of the residence, from the City of Jacksonville, Florida, dated February 5, 1976, there is nothing in the record of this proceeding on which a firm determination can be made as to when construction actually started. Although the actual starting date for construction is unclear, it is obvious from the record that Respondent and the owners began to experience problems from the outset. The owners received a notice of lien soon after the slab for the residence was poured. In addition, there appears to have been some miscalculation with respect to the size of the slab for the structure to which some additions had to be made. Respondent apparently failed to pay for the initial treatment for subterranean termites at the time of the pouring of the slab, and the termite bond on the residence was cancelled. In addition, the slab appears to have been poured in such a fashion as to require adjustments in the construction of the driveway to avoid rainwater runoff entering the residence. One of the more difficult problems in the initial stages of construction involved leaks in the roof of the structure. When it appeared that efforts to repair the leaks had not been entirely successful, the owners requested that Respondent delay work on the interior in order that repairs on the roof might be accomplished before proceeding in order to avoid interior damage. After an extended delay occasioned by an unusual period of dry weather which prevented a determination as to whether the roof would continue to leak, work on the interior was recommenced, only to discover that the roof had not been sufficiently repaired. As a result of continuing problems with the roof, work which had been completed in the interior of the structure was damaged by rainwater. In fact, as of the date of final hearing in this cause, it appears that final repairs to the roof had still not been accomplished. It appears from the record that construction delays attributable to roof leaks in the residence set the tone for the remainder of the business dealings between Respondent and the owners. From this point forward, the relationship between Respondent and the owners became virtually adversary in tone. This state of affairs was complicated by an extensive series of changes or substitutions in the original plans and specifications by the owners. As indicated above, the original Building Agreement contained provisions concerning allowances for various portions of the work, and optional items which could be added at additional charge to the owner. Unfortunately, the record is unclear as to exact dollar amounts attributable to extras selected by the owners, as well as to amounts actually received by Respondent in the course of construction draws on the original contract. However, it is clear that extras selected by the owners totalled between $20,000 and $25,000. These items, which were not contained in the original contract, included ceramic tile flooring; double oven; wooden window frames; extensive extra bricking work, including brick more expensive than that described in the original contract; a larger driveway; burglar alarms; simulated marble vanities, tubs and sinks instead of cast iron fixtures as originally contemplated; crown moldings and interior door moldings throughout the interior of the residence; more expensive plumbing fixtures; extensive parquet flooring; larger closet areas; and extensive changes in the location of plumbing fixtures and electrical outlets. In addition, what appears from the evidence to have been a handmade stairway was substituted at an additional cost of approximately $5,000. The construction of the staircase not only included additional expense, but for some reason not entirely apparent from the record, caused additional delay in construction of other areas in the residence. Respondent apparently did not maintain a separate checking account for construction draws on this project, instead comingling disbursements on the construction loan with other funds in his general checking account. Additionally, no documentation was submitted by either Petitioner or Respondent to establish dates on which draw requests were either submitted by Respondent to the owners or the financial institution financing construction, or the dates on which any such draw requests were funded, either in whole or in part. As a result, it is virtually impossible from the record in this proceeding to determine the basis for disbursements from the construction loan account, or the disposition of those sums once disbursed. Although there was some general testimony about the filing of liens by various subcontractors, no documentation of these liens was submitted into evidence. What is, however, apparent from the record is that in early 1977, almost one year after initial disbursement of construction funds to Respondent, almost the entire $95,000 constituting the construction account was depleted. At that time the residence was approximately 90 percent complete. Thereafter, by Agreement dated February 18, 1977, Respondent and owners agreed that an additional $25,000 would be necessary to complete construction of the residence. Respondent acknowledged that he was in default under the terms of the original Building Agreement, and agreed to reimburse owners for the additional $25,000 needed to complete construction of the residence, subject to certain adjustments. Respondent agreed to complete construction of the residence within 40 days, and further agreed that the financial institution holding the mortgage on the residence was authorized to disburse the additional $25,000 directly to subcontractors, materialmen and laborers for work performed for services rendered on the property. Respondent executed a note in the amount of $25,000, secured by certain property belonging to him as evidence of his obligation to complete construction. However, shortly after execution of the February, 1977, Agreement, Respondent and owners had a dispute over payment of certain laborers. As a result, Respondent was advised by owners not to return to the job site. After this notification, evidence in the record establishes that Respondent contacted the financial institution which held the mortgage on the property and advised them that he would not be completing construction of the residence. It is clear from the record that the owners had more than ample cause for dissatisfaction with both the quality of workmanship and the timeliness with which work was performed by Respondent. Those matters are not, however, at issue in this proceeding. It is also abundantly clear that both Respondent and owners conducted their dealings with one another in a most informal fashion. With the exception of the original Building Agreement, and the February, 1977, agreement, most of the dealings between Respondent and the owners were verbal. Additionally, the absence of detailed documentary evidence makes resolution of many of the factual disputes in this proceeding difficult at best. However, the record clearly establishes that Petitioner failed to request that official notice be taken of any of the provisions of the building codes or other laws of the City of Jacksonville, and that none of these codes or laws were offered into evidence in this proceeding. As a result, a motion to dismiss that portion of the Administrative Complaint alleging violation of applicable building codes was granted by the Hearing Officer at the close of Petitioner's case. Further, although the owner testified as to his belief that certain building materials were "floating" between the project which is the subject of this proceeding and other projects being constructed by Respondent, there is no direct evidence to establish that Respondent, in fact, diverted any funds or property improperly. Finally, as to the question of abandonment, it appears from the record that the owner dismissed the Respondent prior to the expiration of the 40-day period contemplated in the February, 1977, Agreement, and that Respondent advised both the owner and the financial institution financing construction of the project that he would not complete construction of the residence as contemplated in the various agreements between the parties.
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 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.
