Findings Of Fact Petitioners are Dennis Coulter; J. Larry Hooper; L.C. Dairy, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "L.C. Dairy"); and Wabasso Road Dairy, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Wabasso"). L.C. Dairy is a closely held Florida corporation. Mr. Coulter owns 50 percent of the stock of L.C. Dairy. Mr. Coulter also serves as L.C. Dairy's President. Wabasso is a closely held Florida corporation. Mr. Coulter and Mr. Hooper are officers and directors of Wabasso. Mr. Coulter and Mr. Hooper are, together, the majority stockholders of Wabasso. Between 1988 and 1997, Petitioners operated a dairy known as Willowbrook Farms Dairy, which consisted of approximately 2,000 cattle (hereinafter referred to as the "Dairy"). The Dairy was operated on property owned by Willowbrook Coal Company, d/b/a Willowbrook Farms (hereinafter referred to as "Willowbrook"). Willowbrook is a Pennsylvania general partnership. Mr. James Sartori is the general partner of Willowbrook. Willowbrook owned two adjacent parcels of property located in Brevard County, Florida. One parcel was used by Petitioners for the Dairy (hereinafter referred to as the "Dairy Parcel"). The other parcel, located to the west of the Dairy Parcel, was not directly used for grazing dairy cattle (hereinafter referred to as the "Non-Diary Parcel"). Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (hereinafter referred to as the "District"), is a public corporation with regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of surface water management systems. On August 13, 1997, the District entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with Willowbrook whereby the District acquired a conservation easement over the Dairy Parcel and acquired the Non-Dairy Parcel in fee (hereinafter referred to as the "Sales Agreement"). The Sales Agreement specifically provided that all cattle on the Dairy Parcel and the Non-Dairy Parcel had to be removed prior to closing. The terms of the Diary Parcel conservation easement also provided that concentrated animal feeding operations, including dairy operations, were prohibited. The total agreed purchase price for the fee interest in the Non-Dairy Parcel and the easement over the Dairy Parcel was $11,500,000.00. While the Sales Agreement was being negotiated by the District, the District was also negotiating with the National Resource Conservation Service (hereinafter referred to as the "NRCS") of the United States Department of Agriculture (hereinafter referred to as the "USDA") to sell a 30-year conservation easement over the Non-Dairy Parcel to the USDA. USDA was interested in purchasing the easement as part of a federally funded program known as the Wetlands Reserve Program. The USDA ultimately agreed to purchase a conservation easement over the Non-Dairy Parcel from the District for $4,200,000.00. This agreement was reached before closing on the Sales Agreement. No agreement was made between the District and the USDA specifying that the District would provide relocation assistance to any persons displaced as a result of the USDA's purchase of a conservation easement over the Non-Dairy Parcel. The Sales Agreement contained the following contingency: (B) This Agreement is contingent on Buyer entering into an Agreement with the United States of America for funding of a portion of the purchase price of the Conservation Easement for the Restrictions Parcel [the Non-Dairy Parcel] through the Wetlands Reserve Program of the Commodity Credit Corporation. On March 26, 1998, the USDA wired $4,200,000.00 to the District's Land Acquisition Revenue Bonds Project Funds Account. These funds were intended to be used for USDA's purchase of the conservation easement over the Non-Dairy Parcel. Closing on the Sales Agreement took place on March 30, 1998. Closing was initially held for the District's purchase of the fee interest in the Non-Dairy Parcel and the purchase of the conservation easement over the Dairy Parcel. Immediately after the completion of District's closing, a second closing was held on the purchase of the conservation easement over the Non-Dairy Parcel by the USDA. Disbursement of all purchase funds, including the $4,200,000.00 remitted by the USDA to the District and $7,300,000.00 in District funds, took place on March 31, 1998. The net result of the closings on the Sales Agreement was that the District purchased a conservation easement over the Dairy Parcel and the underlying fee interest in the Non-Dairy Parcel for $7,300,000.00 and the USDA purchased a conservation easement over the Non-Dairy Parcel from the District for $4,200,000.00. Pursuant to the terms of the Sales Agreement Petitioners were required to relocate their dairy operations. They incurred substantial costs in doing so. On or about April 9, 1998, Petitioners requested relocation assistance under the "Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act" 42 U.S.C. Sections 4601 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the "Relocation Assistance Act"), and Section 421.55, Florida Statutes, from the District. By letter dated May 8, 1998, the District informed Petitioners that their request for relocation assistance was denied. On or about June 22, 1998, Petitioners filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the District challenging the denial of their request for relocation assistance. The Petition was filed by the District with the Division of Administrative Hearings by Notice filed July 14, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the St. Johns River Water Management District denying Petitioners request for relocation assistance pursuant to the Relocation Assistance Act and Section 421.55, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 John W. Williams, Esquire Stanley J. Niego, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Dykes C. Everett, Esquire Robert P. Major, Esquire Winderweedle, Haines, Ward and Woodman, P.A. 1500 NationsBank Center 390 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns Water River Management District Highway 100, West Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner City of Opa Locka is responsible for reimbursing the Department of Transportation for the cost of relocating water and sewer lines owned and maintained by Petitioner within the State Road 916 right-of-way.
Findings Of Fact Opa Locka Boulevard and N. W. 135 Street in Dade County, Florida, are paired one-way streets between I-95 and N. W. 27 Avenue. They are located within the city limits of the City of Opa Locka and have been designated as State Road 916. Public records reveal that the portions of Opa Locka Boulevard and N. W. 135 Street which were involved in the Department’s road construction project and the right-of-way attendant to those streets were dedicated to perpetual public use by private landowners platting subdivisions between 1928 and 1956. In 1959 the City of Opa Locka transferred those roadways and rights-of-way to Dade County, Florida, so that the County would be responsible for maintaining them. In 1979 Dade County transferred its interests to the Department. The State Road 916 designation was subsequently made. The Department determined the need to improve those streets by widening them and making other improvements such as installing drainage and lighting. As the Department prepared to begin that project, it conducted a utility pre-design meeting on May 26, 1992. Such a meeting involves the Department’s employees who will be supervising portions of a road improvement project and representatives of the owners of utilities located within the area of anticipated construction. The owners of utilities are advised as to the details and extent of the anticipated construction, and they mark maps as to the location of their utilities. As the road design process proceeds, agreements are made and relocation schedules are prepared. If practical, the Department will design the road around utilities which conflict with the location of the roadway. If designing around the utility is not practical, the owner is required to relocate any utility which conflicts with the Department’s roadway or which interferes with the construction project. If the utility owner intends to relocate its own utilities, a Utility Relocation Schedule is agreed upon by the owner and the Department. If the owner requests that the Department do the relocation work and agrees to pay the costs in advance, a Joint Participation Agreement is entered into, and the Department’s contractor performs the work. The City’s consulting engineer attended the May 1992 utility pre-design meeting and attended many subsequent meetings. Subsequent meetings were also attended by the City’s public works director and the City’s project engineer. During the pre-design and design stages of the road project, the Department was able to design around all utilities or obtain voluntarily removal or relocation by all utility owners except the City. The City maintained that it could not afford to remove or relocate its water and sewer lines. Both the City and the Department were very concerned about the location of the City’s lines and about the lines themselves. The lines were made of cement asbestos and were old. Cement asbestos lines cannot withstand nearby construction and will break. Neither the Department nor the City wanted the lines to break during construction, and the Department did not want to build new roads and have the lines underneath breaking afterward, requiring re-construction. As feared, the City’s sewer line ruptured while another utility owner was relocating its utilities in the area of the City’s sewer line prior to the Department’s construction work. Further, as a result of that other utility owner’s relocation work, it was discovered that the City’s water and sewer lines within the project limits were not in fact located where the City’s maps of the lines reflected. Therefore, the City’s utilities posed a danger to the construction project, and the Department could not allow the lines to remain wherever they were. Due to the City’s position that it could not afford to remove or relocate its water and sewer lines and due to the Department’s need to proceed with the construction project, the Department and the City’s representatives agreed that the Department would issue to the City a 30-day notice to remove or relocate, but the City would not do so. The Department would then do the work for the City, and the City would reimburse the Department for its costs under a reimbursement plan yet to be negotiated. That meeting was attended by the City’s consulting engineer, the City’s former public works director, and the City’s current public works director. Everyone attending agreed that the lines needed to be replaced with newer, stronger lines. The Department agreed to issue the 30-day notice, do the work, and then seek reimbursement from the City since doing so was the only solution to the problem which would allow the road project to proceed without substantial damages and increased costs due to delay. Based upon that agreement and the City’s inability to pay the costs of relocating its water and sewer lines, no Utility Relocation Schedule or Joint Participation Agreement was entered into by the City and the Department. The City’s consulting engineer drew preliminary plans for the relocation of the City’s utilities, and the Department submitted those plans to its contractor to obtain bids for the City’s relocation work. The contractor priced the work and obtained three bids. The subcontract was awarded, the prime contractor added its overhead costs, and that became the anticipated cost. The Department kept the City advised as to additional costs as they were incurred. On July 7, 1993, the Department issued its 30-day notice to the City, expecting the City to respond in the agreed non-adversarial manner. Instead, the City requested this administrative proceeding. As the work was actually performed, the City expressed no disagreement with the materials used or the construction techniques. The City’s representatives were frequent visitors to the construction site since the actual work disclosed more problems. Not only were the City’s utilities not located where the City indicated they were but also the construction crews encountered lines which the City did not know existed. These problems caused additional delays in the project and thereby caused additional expenses to the Department. The reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the Department to remove and relocate the City’s utilities within the project limits total $791,751.07
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a Final Order be entered finding Petitioner City of Opa Locka responsible for reimbursing the Department of Transportation in the amount of $791,751.07 for the costs incurred in relocating and replacing the City's water and sewer utilities. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia C. Ellis, City Attorney City of Opa Locka 777 Sharazad Boulevard Opa Locka, Florida 33054 Francine M. Ffolkes Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation c/o Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owned property in Charlotte County, Florida which laid within the right of way of proposed Federal Highway 1-75. The Petitioner's property was required for the highway right of way. The Petitioner lived on the property in a mobile home for more than ninety (90) days prior to the time that officials of the Florida Department of Transportation initiated negotiations for acquisition of the property. During February, 1975, David L. Nicholson, a Right of Way Agent with the Department of Transportation, contacted the Petitioner in order to negotiate the acquisition of the Petitioner's property, and to explain the amount of relocation assistance benefits that the Petitioner might be entitled to receive in order to compensate him for his having to move his residence. Petitioner was offered $3,500.00 in relocation benefits. This offer was predicated on the Petitioner's remaining an owner/occupant of new property to which he moved. When Mr. Nicholson was advised that the Petitioner was going to be renting new property, rather than purchasing it, Mr. Nicholson advised the Petitioner that he could receive up to $4,000.00 in rent supplements. The Petitioner construed the $4,000.00 figure as the amount that he would receive. The $4,000.00 was actually the highest figure that the Petitioner could receive, and was considerably more than the Petitioner was entitled to receive. The Department of Transportation compensated the Petitioner for the cost of moving his mobile home, and setting it up on the lot which the Petitioner was renting. The amount provided the Petitioner for this purpose was $970.15. Petitioner concedes that he was adequately compensated for moving and setting up his mobile home. The rental value of the Petitioner's property in Charlotte County, without the mobile home on it was $50.00 per month. This figure is called the "economic rent" of the property. A comparable lot in Charlotte County, Florida, would have cost the Petitioner $55.00 per month to rent. The difference between the monthly rental of a comparable lot, and the economic rent of the Petitioner's property was $5.00. If the Petitioner received this amount for four years, he would be entitled to $240.00. The Department of Transportation offered to pay this amount to the Petitioner, but he refused it, contending that he is entitled to $4,000.00. No evidence was offered at the hearing from which it could be concluded that Petitioner was entitled to receive more than the $970.15 provided him to move and set up his mobile home, and $240.00, the difference between the rental value of a comparable lot, and the economic rent of the Petitioner's property for four years as relocation assistance benefits.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That an order be entered finding the Petitioner entitled under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 4624 to $240.00 in relocation assistance benefits above and beyond the $970.15 already provided; and that this amount be forwarded to the Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building, Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Veltie A. Dodson Route 5, Box 268 Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151 Tom B. Webb, Jr., Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Triple M Enterprises, Inc., employed persons in the State of Florida without obtaining workers' compensation insurance meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. If Petitioner did not obtain the required insurance, the subsequent issue is the amount of any penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Division is charged with the regulation of workers' compensation insurance in the State of Florida and is responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers' compensation insurance for the benefit of their employees. Triple M, is a corporation located at 24393 North 71, Robertsdale, Alabama, and is a framing and drywall contractor. Dwain Sanders and Celina Sanders are principals of Triple M. On June 4, 2004, Triple M was engaged as a subcontractor in the construction of a building on the premises located at 334 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, Florida. On June 4, 2004, Patricia Jean Krossman was an investigator employed by the Division. Her duties include ensuring that the employers in the state are in compliance with the requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law. More specifically, she visits work sites, and determines if the workers are covered by workers' compensation insurance. The morning of the aforementioned date, Ms. Krossman visited 334 Gulf Breeze Parkway, in Gulf Breeze, Florida, and observed four men engaged in construction activities, including framing a building. Dwain Sanders, who was at the site, identified himself as the owner and president of Triple M, which was the employer of the four men who were working at the site. Ms. Krossman requested that Mr. Sanders provide her with proof that he had workers' compensation coverage effective in Florida. Mr. Sanders made an immediate effort to supply the requested proof. Pursuant to Mr. Sanders' request, his insurance agent in Montgomery, Alabama faxed a portion of Triple M's policy to the Division's Pensacola office. The documents received by Ms. Krossman caused her to conclude that Triple M had not complied with Florida law because she believed the document did not demonstrate that Florida premium rates were paid, or that Florida class codes were used, or that there was a Florida endorsement in place. Ms. Krossman conducted a database search of the Coverage and Compliance Automated System database and the National Council on Compensation Insurance database. The search did not demonstrate that Triple M had a policy then effective in Florida. Having concluded that the documents produced by Triple M failed to demonstrate coverage in accordance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and after noting the absence of policy information in the databases, Ms. Krossman issued a Stop- Work Order to Triple M on June 4, 2004. The portion of Triple M's policy, provided by Triple M's insurance agent by facsimile, number 748-36-79, which was issued by the American Home Assurance Company to Triple M, had a classifications of operations page which related solely to work to be performed in Alabama. This page provided class codes, the rates, and the premium basis which provided the total estimated annual premium that Triple M was required to pay, based on Alabama law. The faxed document included a policy information page that provided in Item 2, that the policy period ran from January 1, 2004 until January 1, 2005. It provided in Item 3A, as follows: "Workers Compensation Insurance: Part One of the policy applies to the Workers' Compensation Law of the states listed here: AL." The policy information page provided in Item 3C that, "Part Three of the policy applies to the states, if any, listed here:" and lists 44 states, including Florida. The policy provides in Item 4, "Classifications of Operation," a statement of the rating group, and the "total classification premium increase limits," under the heading, "State of Alabama Totals." On June 25, 2004, Ms. Krossman received via facsimile machine, an endorsement to policy no. WC 748-36-79. This was the first time Ms. Krossman had seen this endorsement. It purported to add Florida coverage using Florida premium rates and class codes. It also purported to add the Gulf Breeze Parkway work-site where Ms. Krossman found Triple M engaged in construction activities. The base policy, on its face, indicated a date of January 1, 2004. The issue date of the endorsement was June 16, 2004. This endorsement was not in effect on June 4, 2004, the date of the Stop Work Order. Ms. Krossman served Triple M a "Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation." The Division has the statutory authority to request payroll records from an employer working in Florida and the "Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation" is the vehicle through which those records are sought. The payroll records provide the data required to calculate any penalties for failure to maintain required coverage. Penalties are calculated by determining the premium amount the employer would have paid based on his or her Florida payroll, and multiplying by a factor of 1.5. In response to the "Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation," Triple M provided payroll records. The records indicated that Triple M had employed workers in Florida in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. Using the records provided by Triple M, the penalty was calculated by Ms. Krossman. After some interaction with Ms. Celina Sanders, of Triple M, she eventually determined that the proper penalty to be assessed was $36,521.61. The penalty was calculated using Florida premium rates and class codes in accordance with the dictates of Section 440.38, Florida Statutes. The penalty is correct. Triple M depends on its agent, the Goff Group, of Montgomery, Alabama, to provide proper insurance coverage. As noted above, Item 3.A of the policy listed the primary state of coverage as being Alabama. The policy plainly states at "Part Three - Other States Insurance, How This Insurance Applies," in paragraph 1, that "This other states insurance applies only if one or more states are shown in Item 3.C of the Information Page." One of the other states shown is Florida. At paragraph 2, of the section noted immediately above, the policy states, "If you begin work in any one of those states after the effective date of this policy and are not insured or are not self-insured for such work, all provisions of the policy will apply as though that state were listed in Item 3.A of the Information Page." At paragraph 3 of the policy, the following sentence is found: "We will reimburse you for the benefits required by the workers' compensation law of that state if we are not permitted to pay the benefits directly to persons entitled to them." At paragraph 3, the following sentence is found: "If you have work on the effective date of this policy in any state not listed in Item 3.A. of the Information Page, coverage will not be afforded for that state unless we are notified within thirty days." After that language is the following: "B. Notice. Tell us at once if you begin work in any state listed in Item 3.C. of the Information Page." The plain language of the policy reveals that Triple M's employees were covered by the policy, and that the employees would receive the same benefits, in case of injury, as if it were a Florida Policy with Florida rates and classifications, so long as the work at Gulf Breeze Parkway had not been going on for more than thirty days. Ms. Sanders testified under oath that she notified Triple M's carrier within 30 days of the inception of the work at the Gulf Breeze Parkway site. A letter to the Department of Financial Services signed by Dwain and Celina Sanders on behalf of Triple M, dated June 24, 2004, asserted that Triple M had just begun working in Florida, for the first time in 2004, the week that Ms. Krossman entered the work site. Triple M has been in business for 22 years and has never been bankrupt. Triple M has 401K plans for its employees as well as health insurance. Triple M would have difficulty paying the fine proposed by the Division. Triple M believed its workers were covered by workers' compensation insurance and they were covered. The parties agree that American Home Assurance Company is authorized to write insurance in Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers' Compensation affirm the Stop-Work Order issued to Petitioner on June 4, 2004, and assess a fine of $36,521.61. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Thompson, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dwain Sanders Triple M Enterprises, Inc. 24393 North 71 Robertsdale, Alabama 36567 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is engaged in the business of interior design and space planning of residential and commercial structures. In conjunction with these activities, Petitioner also manufactures furniture and cabinets. In 1986, prior to relocation to the present business site, Petitioner's facilities in Davie, Florida, included a kitchen, business offices, manufacturing room and bathroom. In the rear of the building, Petitioner maintained a spray room for the painting of furniture. In June or July of 1986, Petitioner was required to relocate to Pompano Beach, Florida, as the result of a public taking of the property where it was previously situated for the construction of interstate highway 595 in Broward County, Florida. The parties stipulated at hearing that Petitioner is an eligible displacee under the federal government's Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Respondent administers the Act using federal law interpretations. Respondent also administers a corresponding state relocation aid program established by state law. Rules governing the state program are almost a verbatim duplicate of the federal program. Chapter 4 of Respondent's right-of-way procedures manual, comprised of state rules governing nonfederal relocation assistance, has been adopted by reference by Respondent as a formal administrative rule. Both federal and state rules are used in administration of federal relocation aid projects. Common requirements of the two sets of rules are given the same interpretations by Respondent. Petitioner was previously reimbursed by Respondent for various expenses related to relocation. Respondent denied reimbursement for Petitioner's expenses related to telephone "yellow page" advertising, consultant and legal fees, installation of an exhaust fan system, and the time Petitioner's employees spent meeting with officials regarding relocation. Petitioner's primary source of advertising in the previous location was the telephone directory yellow pages. Petitioner had run the advertisement in the yellow pages for approximately 10 years. The advertisement was paid for monthly by Petitioner. While cancellation for the remaining period of time on the advertisement contract was possible at the time of Petitioner's relocation, Petitioner did not cancel the contract since a call forwarding service was provided by the telephone company. This service informed callers at Petitioner's previous telephone number of the number at the new location. Since Petitioner continued using this telephone directory advertisement for the completed 12 month term of the contract, Respondent denied Petitioner's request for reimbursement of approximately $1,324 or 10 monthly payments of $132.40. Respondent's denial was based on the benefit Petitioner obtained from the telephone call message service providing potential customers with Petitioner's new number and federal regulations prohibiting reimbursement for additional operating expenses incurred because of operating in a new location. Respondent's employee informed Petitioner that the cost of "hooking up" extensive duct work from the spray paint booth at the new location to an exhaust fan would be reimbursed by Respondent. The original exhaust fan employed in Petitioner's operation at the previous location had consisted of a portable fan on a movable dolly with a three to four-foot vent pipe which allowed toxic fumes to be blown out of the rear door of the facility. The new facility location did not offer such a convenience for ventilation. Further, local ordinances and regulations prevented use of Petitioner's former exhaust system. Instead, Petitioner was required to acquire a new exhaust apparatus. The new equipment consisted of a ventilation fan which had to be permanently attached to the outside of the roof of the facility. Ductwork measuring 6 to 7 feet in length was connected to the fan through an opening cut into the roof. The ductwork extended into the building's interior spray booth from the roof. Petitioner sought reimbursement of $385 for a flange fitting necessary to connect the ductwork to the booth. Petitioner also sought reimbursement in the amount of $460 for an offset fitting used to line up the ductwork with structural aspects of the roof, and $525 for labor costs associated with connection of the ductwork. Respondent denied reimbursement of the entire amount of $1,370 on the basis that such a larger, more modern and comprehensive exhaust system constituted a building improvement and was not permitted under applicable regulations governing either federal and state relocation programs. Petitioner's vice president is Sherry Parrish. Ms. Parrish was employed by Petitioner as a consultant to design a front or display area in the new facility. Among other consultant duties, she evaluated and selected an improved telephone system, wall coverings, carpet and linoleum for the new location. Petitioner had previously utilized the services of its president, Jerry Parrish, as a consultant regarding layout of manufacturing space located at the rear of the new facility. Petitioner's payment to Mr. Parrish of approximately $2,000 for this service was previously reimbursed by Respondent. Petitioner's claim for reimbursement of $1,035 paid to Ms. Parrish for this purpose was denied by Respondent on the basis that the building at the new location was unfinished. Federal and state regulations governing reimbursement for such expenses require that the building which is the subject of relocation be an "existing structure" that is already built, finished and completed. The building had been issued a certificate of occupancy in accordance with local governmental regulations prior to Petitioner's move to the premises. Petitioner hired an attorney to draft a lease in response to the lease proffered by Petitioner's future landlord at the new location facility. Petitioner was charged $1,180 by the attorney for this service. The attorney also provided petitioner with consultation services regarding certain relocation sites and the relative commercial advantages and disadvantages of each site. On a professional basis, the attorney has provided this consultative service to a number of other small businesses. The amount of the attorney's consultation fee for this service to Petitioner was $2,405. Respondent, considering the attorney's services to be of a legal nature, denied all expense reimbursement related to these charges on the basis that reimbursement for legal fees is not permitted by federal or state regulations. Petitioner sought reimbursement for the time spent by its officers in conferences with Respondent's representatives regarding Petitioner's relocation. Conferences were generally held at the Petitioner's facility or by telephone. Petitioner's request for reimbursement of a total of $1,200 for this alleged loss of employee time was denied by Respondent on the basis that regulations did not permit reimbursement for time spent determining claims or claim eligibility. Petitioner was previously paid $1,000 by Respondent to cover the cost of search expenses incurred in looking for relocation sites. The initial property which Petitioner decided upon as a site for relocation became unavailable as a result of the progress of condemnation action involving Petitioner's old location. Petitioner undertook a second and successful search to find a suitable relocation site. Petitioner's request for reimbursement of an additional $1,500 for expenses related to the second search was denied by Respondent. Respondent noted that rules governing federal and state relocation expense reimbursement limit search expenses to $1,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered awarding Petitioner reimbursement for consultative fees paid to Sherry Parrish in the amount of $1,035 as an eligible relocation expense and denying all other claims for reimbursement. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 5th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6. Addressed. 7-10. Unnecessary to result reached. 11. Addressed. 12-14. Unnecessary to result reached. 15-16. Not supported by weight of the evidence. Corroborative only of self-serving assertion; hearsay. Addressed. Unnecessary to result reached. Also, facts evidence that payment by was to be for the "unused portion" of which there was none. Not supported by weight of the evidence. 21-28. Addressed; some portions unnecessary to result on this issue. 29-35. Addressed; some portions unnecessary to result reached. 36-41. Addressed; some portions unnecessary to result reached. 42. -49. Addressed in part; remainder unnecessary to result reached. 50-51. Addressed in part; remainder unnecessary for result reached. 52-53. Addressed in part; remainder rejected as legal conclusion unsupported by the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-9. Addressed in part; remainder unnecessary to result. 10-16. Addressed. Addressed. Rejected; Hearsay. 19-24. Addressed. 25-26. Addressed in part; remainder unnecessary to result. Weight of the evidence does not support that the building was unfinished. Addressed. 29-33. Addressed. 34-41. Addressed in part; remainder unnecessary to result. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Douglas Reynolds, Esquire 499 Northwest 70 Avenue Suite 220 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33317-2443 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Hon. Kaye N. Henderson Secretary Haydon Burns Building Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a Public Assistance Eligibility Specialist I in its Refugee Assistance Program for approximately one year. In early 1982, it became necessary to terminate the positions of many eligibility workers in that program due to budget cuts. Petitioner's position was one of those abolished. Petitioner was reassigned to an eligibility worker position in Respondent's Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program. He was assigned to a unit supervised by Joann Frazier, which operated in a different work location than Petitioner worked at when he was assigned to the Refugee Assistance Program. Petitioner reported to his new job location on March 31, 1982. Since he had not been trained in his new duties at the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program, Petitioner was not immediately given a caseload. Instead, he was assigned to some miscellaneous duties until the training class commenced on April 8, 1982. On April 1, 1982, Petitioner did not report to his new assignment and did not contact that office. Rather, he returned to his old work assignment, where he was specifically advised by the network manager of the Refugee Assistance Program to immediately report to his new assignment. Petitioner went hone instead. On April 2, 1982, Petitioner did not report to his new position until after lunch. Frazier met with Petitioner and advised him regarding his duties and regarding the training session he would attend the following week. Petitioner told Frazier that he was having a problem with his hand and requested permission to leave work early that day. Frazier granted that permission. On April 5 and 6, Petitioner failed to report to his new assignment and failed to contact that office. On April 7, Petitioner reported for work after lunch. On April 8, 1982, the first day of the training class, Petitioner telephoned the staff development and training office to advise that he would not attend the training class and that he was going to the hospital to undergo surgery on his hand. Petitioner never again reported for work in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program. In the meantime, Petitioner located another employee of Respondent who had been transferred from Petitioner's new work location to Petitioner's old work location. The two employees agreed they would request that they be allowed to exchange positions. That request was not granted due to the administrative difficulties Respondent was already encountering in reassigning employees because of the current and anticipated additional budget cuts in order to avoid if possible having to lay off any of Respondent's employees. By the time Petitioner stopped reporting for work, he had nearly exhausted both his sick leave and his annual leave. Frazier credited him for the amount of sick and annual leave he had left, and, effective April 14, 1982, she placed Petitioner on "leave without pay" status. On April 16, 1982, Frazier received a letter from Petitioner's psychiatrist stating that Petitioner should take a two-week vacation because he was feeling depressed. Frazier refused to grant Petitioner authorized leave time based on that letter, since the psychiatric recommendation of a two-week vacation contradicted Petitioner's earlier advice that he was going into the hospital for surgery on his hand. On May 4, 1982, Frazier's supervisor, James A. Sanders, wrote to Petitioner advising him that he had been on unauthorized leave since April 8, 1982, for failure to report to work. Sanders further advised Petitioner that the letter from Petitioner's psychiatrist was not sufficient to fulfill an earlier directive that Petitioner provide a statement from his physician certifying the need for hospitalization and Petitioner's absence from work. The letter directed Petitioner to report to Frazier by May 7, 1982, at 8:00 a.m. and further advised him that failure to report to work would be deemed to constitute an abandonment by Petitioner of his position. Petitioner did not report to work as directed. Rather, he sent Respondent a letter from his psychiatrist dated May 11, 1982, advising that Petitioner should extend his vacation for another two weeks, since he was still depressed. Petitioner spoke by telephone with Sanders on Friday, May 14, 1982. Sanders advised Petitioner that unless he reported to work at 8:00 a.m. on May 17 at Frazier's unit, Respondent would consider Petitioner in an abandonment status. Petitioner advised Sanders that he would rather resign than be deemed to have abandoned his position and that he would come to Sanders' office on Monday morning with his resignation letter. Petitioner did appear at Sanders' office; however, he did not leave a resignation letter. On July 16, 1982, Sanders directed another letter to Petitioner reminding him that he was still on unauthorized leave and directing him to report to work by July 23, 1982, at 8:00 a.m. or be deemed to have abandoned his position and to have resigned from the Career Service. Petitioner did not report to work, and on July 23, 1882, a letter was sent by Respondent to Petitioner officially advising him that he had resigned from his position as a Public Assistance Eligibility specialist I and from Career Service. On August 10, 1382, Petitioner appeared at Respondent's offices and filled out an application for employment. On that application, he stated that he had been on unauthorized leave of absence. At the formal hearing in this cause, Petitioner admitted that he never requested or was granted an authorized leave of absence by Frazier, by Sanders, by anyone in the Refugee Assistance Program, by anyone in the District Personnel Office, or by anyone on behalf of Respondent. Petitioner took an unauthorized leave of absence from his employment with Respondent from April 2, 1982, until August 16, 1982, when he appeared at Respondent's offices requesting employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Petitioner to have abandoned his position with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a Public Assistance Eligibility Specialist I and to have resigned from the Career Service. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th 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 12th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Feliciano del Olmo 610 South Ninth Avenue, #22 Miami, Florida 33130 Leonard Helfand, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Ruth Rhode Building, Suite 1040 401 North West Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Negotiations for the purchase of right-of-way property for construction of Interstate Highway 95 in Palm Beach County, Florida, began on May 1, 1973. On that date the Applicant lived in an apartment at 27 S.W. 15th Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida with Ms. Willie Hendley, and seven children. The Applicant and Ms. Hendley began living together in approximately 1968. Ms. Hendley had five children at that time. The Applicant and Ms. Hendley had two more children between 1968 and 1973. This residence was located within the highway right-of- way. The Applicant was notified by the Agency that it would be necessary for them to relocate. The applicant, Ms. Hendley, and the seven children moved to a house at 230 N. W. 13th Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida, in approximately August, 1973. The Agency found the new living quarters inadequate under the regulations of the Federal Department of Transportation, which require that replacement housing must be decent, safe, and sanitary. An agent of the Agency informed the Applicant that in order to receive relocation benefits, the new residence would need to be made decent, safe, and sanitary, or the family would have to move to a new location that would meet the requirements. Several months after they moved to the house on N.W. 13th Avenue, the Applicant and Willie Hendley separated. The Applicant moved out of the house, and found a home on N. E. 9th Avenue. He anticipated that Ms. Hendley and the children would move into this home, but they did not. The Applicant stayed at this address for approximately one month. He then moved into a room at his sister's home where he stayed until the end of 1975. After they separated, Ms. Hendley and the children moved into a residence at 917 S. W. 3rd Ct., Delray Beach, Florida. This residence met the requirements of the Department of Transportation, and Ms. Hendley received relocation assistance benefits. The Applicant and Ms. Hendley and the seven children were displaced from their residence at 27 S. W. 15th Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida, as a result of the acquisition of right-of-way for Interstate Route 95. The Applicant was later displaced from the family household as a result of his separation from Ms. Hendley. There was no evidence offered at the hearing that the Applicant moved into living quarters that were comparable to the quarters at 27 S. W. 15th Avenue. That was a two bedroom apartment. The Applicant moved into a single room. The Applicant's displacement was in effect the result of his separation from Ms. Hendley, rather than the result of the acquisition of right-of-way.
The Issue The issues in each case are whether, pursuant to Sections 489.141 and 489.143, Florida Statutes (2003), a claimant is entitled to payment from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, and, if so, whether, pursuant to Section 489.143(7), Florida Statutes (2003), Respondent may automatically suspend the residential contractor's license of Petitioner until Petitioner reimburses Respondent for the paid claim.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed as a certified residential contractor, holding license number CRC 013599. Respondent first issued a residential contractor's license to Petitioner in 1978, and Petitioner has been continually licensed since that time. Petitioner has never been disciplined by Respondent or any local governmental agency. On January 29, 2004, Respondent transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings seven files containing administrative complaints alleging disciplinary breaches against Petitioner for many of the transactions covered in the nine subject cases. These seven new cases have not yet been heard, and Respondent has not yet entered any restitution orders against Petitioner. In the past, Petitioner has placed his residential contractor's license with various corporations to qualify them to perform residential construction. In February 1999, Petitioner met with Lori Thomson, president of Thomson Homes, Inc., to discuss placing his license with her residential construction company. Now inactive, Thomson Homes, Inc., had been in the residential construction business since at least 1994, operating out of an office in Palm Beach County, which is also the location of all but one of the residential construction jobs that are the subject of these cases. Since 1994, Thomson Homes, Inc., had used the general contractor's license of Ms. Thomson's husband, Steven Thomson, to qualify to perform residential construction. During the time that his license qualified Thomson Homes, Inc., Mr. Thomson believed that he and his wife owned the corporation equally and that she served as the president and he served as the vice-president. In the summer of 1998, Mr. Thomson filed for divorce from Ms. Thomson. In February 1999, Ms. Thomson fired Mr. Thomson from Thomson Homes, Inc. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Thomson learned that Ms. Thomson had caused all of the stock to be issued to her when the corporation was formed, and that she had assumed all of the officer and director positions. In early March 1999, Mr. Thomson cancelled all of the building permits that he had obtained on behalf of Thomson Homes, Inc., and withdrew his general contractor's license from Ms. Thomson's corporation, effective March 20, 1999. When Mr. Thomson withdrew his license from Thomson Homes, Inc., it was in the process of building or preparing to build about ten homes. At no time during Petitioner's discussions with Ms. Thomson was he aware that Thomson Homes, Inc., was actively involved in construction. Eventually, Ms. Thomson and Petitioner agreed that Petitioner would place his residential contractor's license with Thomson Homes, Inc., and would supervise the corporation's construction activities. In return, Thomson Homes, Inc., would pay Petitioner $500 weekly and 35 percent of the profits. After filing the necessary documentation in April 1999, Petitioner qualified Thomson Homes, Inc. effective April 22 or 26, 1999. Petitioner advised Ms. Thomson that he had other work to do for another month, so he could not start with Thomson Homes, Inc. immediately. Ms. Thomson told him that she had to get financing arranged for several signed contracts and did not have any construction taking place at the time. The record is unclear whether this delay took place after the initial agreement between Petitioner and Ms. Thomson or after Petitioner formally placed his license with Thomson Homes, Inc. However, in either event, from the date that Petitioner formally placed his license with Thomson Homes, Inc., he never had a substantive conversation with Ms. Thomson about any construction activities of Thomson Homes, Inc. Not hearing from Ms. Thomson, Petitioner eventually called her to learn when he would start work. At first, Ms. Thomson took Petitioner's calls and kept explaining that the financing paperwork had been delayed. She promised to call Petitioner when construction was ready to proceed. However, Ms. Thomson never contacted Petitioner, and she later stopped taking or returning Petitioner's calls. In early August 1999, Petitioner called Thomson Homes, Inc., and learned that its telephone had been disconnected. He visited the office of Thomson Homes, Inc., but found it closed and the premises vacated. In fact, Thomson Homes, Inc., discontinued business on or about August 1, 1999. Between the date that Petitioner had qualified Thomson Homes and the point at which Thomson Homes ceased doing business, Thomson Homes, Inc., had entered into construction contracts, taken deposits and draws on construction loans, and performed residential construction--all unknown to Petitioner. Also unknown to Petitioner was the fact that Thomson Homes, Inc., had failed to perform its obligations under many, if not all, of its construction contracts during that period. The record is unclear when Petitioner withdrew his license from Thomson Homes, Inc. Petitioner sent Respondent a letter on August 30, 1999, advising of the withdrawal of his license from Thomson Homes, Inc. Later advised that he needed to file another form to effect the withdrawal, Petitioner did so in March 2000. The difference is not important in these cases. At no time did Petitioner receive any money from Thomson Homes, Inc., or any of the claimants who contracted with Thomson Homes, Inc. At no time did Petitioner enter into any contracts with any of the claimants. Only after Thomson Homes, Inc., had taken the claimants' money and abandoned work or failed to commence work did Petitioner learn that Thomson Homes, Inc., had done construction business under his license. DOAH Case No. 03-3540 involves the claim of Sandra Harvey. Ms. Harvey entered into a construction agreement with Thomson Homes, Inc., on September 9, 1998. Pursuant to the agreement, Ms. Harvey agreed to pay Thomson Homes, Inc., $25,500 for a lot and $115,260 for a home, which Thomson Homes, Inc., agreed to construct to "substantial completion" within 120 days from the date of slab pour. After pouring the slab, constructing the shell, and completing the rough plumbing, air conditioning, and electrical, Thomson Homes, Inc., stopped work on Ms. Harvey's home in early 1999. Ms. Harvey learned of the problem when Mr. Thomson called her in early 1999 and said that he could not finish the home because Ms. Thomson had taken over the business. This call probably took place no later than late March 1999, when Mr. Thomas withdrew as the qualifier for Thomson Homes, Inc. The record does not reveal the extent of payments from Ms. Harvey or her lender or the extent of completed work at the time that Thomson Homes, Inc., abandoned the job. Although the complaint is not part of this record, Ms. Harvey commenced a legal action against Thomson Homes, Inc., but not Petitioner. She obtained a default final summary judgment against Thomson Homes, Inc., on March 30, 2001, for a total sum of $46,267.32, including attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The judgment states, in part: Subsequent to entering into the above referenced contract, Defendant breached its contract by accepting Plaintiff's deposits and construction loan disbursements and thereafter abandoning the project and failing to pay subcontractors and/or materialmen for their labor, services and material provided. As a result of Defendant abandoning the project, Plaintiff was compelled to retain a new contractor to complete her home at an additional cost over and above the original contract amount. As a direct result of Defendant abandoning the project, the misapplication of construction funds and financial mismanagement Plaintiff has been forced to borrow additional funds from the construction lender. On May 3, 2001, Ms. Harvey filed a claim with the Construction Industries Recovery Fund (Recovery Fund). In response to a question asking if she had made a diligent effort to collect payment from the contractor, Ms. Harvey answered "yes," explaining she had "filed lawsuit." Ms. Harvey probably filed her claim within two years of when Thomson Homes, Inc., abandoned her job. By the end of March 1999, Mr. Thomson informed Ms. Harvey that his wife had fired him, so he could not work on her home anymore. A change in qualifier does not mean that Thomson Homes, Inc., would necessarily abandon the job, but, as noted in the Conclusions of Law, abandonment presumptively arises upon the expiration of 90 days without work. No work took place on Ms. Harvey's home after Mr. Thomson withdrew as qualifier, so presumptive abandonment took place by the end of June 1999--after May 3, 1999, which is two years prior to the date on which Ms. Harvey filed her claim. By letter dated June 5, 2001, from James Brogan of WEI Consulting Group to Ms. Harvey, Mr. Brogan states that he had investigated the assets of Thomson Homes, Inc. Mr. Brogan found no bankruptcy filing by Thomson Homes, Inc., in Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Florida. Thomson Homes, Inc., was a party to 282 legal actions and owed tangible personal property taxes on furniture in a model home, but the furniture was no longer available. On February 28, 2003, Respondent issued an Order approving Ms. Harvey's claim of $25,000 against the Recovery Fund and automatically suspending Petitioner's license until he reimburses the Recovery Fund for the full amount of the paid claim. The Order, copies of which were served on all parties, states that Ms. Harvey is the Petitioner, the Recovery Fund is a Respondent, and "Larry Shimkus, d/b/a Thomson Homes, Inc.," is a Respondent. The Order advises that "you" may seek a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if material facts are in dispute. On March 17, 2003, Petitioner filed a Petition for Section 120.57 Formal Administrative Hearing. The petition, which was served on Ms. Harvey and Respondent, contests the payment to Ms. Harvey and the automatic suspension of Petitioner's license. The petition contests the payment of Ms. Harvey's claim because she had made insufficient efforts to satisfy the judgment; she had failed to submit all required exhibits with her claim; her judgment is against Thomson Homes, Inc., and not Petitioner; her judgment does not find that Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(g), (j), or (k), Florida Statutes; and Ms. Thomson deceived Petitioner in violation of Section 489.132, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the petition contests the automatic suspension because the payment to Ms. Harvey is not authorized, her claim is incomplete, and her judgment is not against Petitioner. Lastly, the petition seeks attorneys' fees under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. DOAH Case No. 03-3541 involves the claim of John and Kathleen Whitesides. The Whitesides, who lived at the time in Juno Beach, Florida, entered into a construction contract with Thomson Homes, Inc., on February 7, 1999. Pursuant to the agreement, the Whitesides agreed to pay Thomson Homes, Inc., $154,094 for a home, which Thomson Homes, Inc., agreed to construct to "substantial completion" within 120 days from the date of slab pour. After the Whitesides paid Thomson Homes, Inc., $5000 and secured a construction loan, Thomson Homes, Inc., never commenced construction. In a complaint filed April 3, 2000, the Whitesides commenced a legal action against Thomson Homes, Inc., but not Petitioner. The two-count complaint alleges a breach of contract, based on Thomson Homes' alleged "abandon[ment]" of the job "prior to any construction," and unjust enrichment, based on Thomson Homes' alleged receipt of funds and failure to complete construction. The Whitesides obtained a default final judgment against Thomson Homes, Inc., on December 21, 2000, for a total sum of $20,146.67, including attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The judgment states, in part: "Defendant is in breach of the Contract dated February 7, 1999, and has received unjust enrichment from Defendant's failure to fulfill the terms of the Contract to build a home for Plaintiffs." On August 9, 2001, David Tassell, the Whitesides' attorney in the circuit court action against Thomson Homes, Inc., stated, in an acknowledged statement, that he had performed "numerous" real property searches in Palm Beach and Martin counties' public records and determined that Thomas Homes, Inc., "owns no real property in Martin County." The omission of Palm Beach County in the statement is unexplained. Mr. Tassell's statement adds that he has retained a private investigator, who confirmed that Thomson Homes, Inc., owns no boats, planes, or automobiles. On August 10, 2001, the Whitesides filed a claim with the Recovery Fund. In response to a question asking if they had made a diligent effort to collect payment from the contractor, the Whitesides answered "yes," but did not supply an explanation in the following blank. The completed questionnaire accompanying the claim states that the Whitesides discovered the violation in September 1999 and that it occurred in July to August 1999. On September 17, 2002, Respondent issued an Order approving the Whitesides' claim of $18,526.67 against the Recovery Fund and automatically suspending Petitioner's license until he reimburses the Recovery Fund for the full amount of the paid claim. The Order, copies of which were served on all parties, states that the Whitesides are the Petitioners, the Recovery Fund is a Respondent, and "Larry Shimkus, d/b/a Thomson Homes, Inc.," is a Respondent. The Order advises that "you" may seek a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if material facts are in dispute. The Whitesides probably filed their claim within two years of when they reasonably should have discovered that Thomson Homes, Inc., had wrongfully failed to commence construction, as is required for reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, presumptive abandonment arose when Thomson Homes, Inc., after entering the contract, performed no work for 90 days. Six months elapsed from the signing of the contract to the date that is two years prior to the filing of the claim. Although the record is not well-developed on the point, it is more likely than not that due diligence did not require that the Whitesides discover the abandonment within the first 90 days after it had presumptively arisen. The Whitesides' judgment is probably based on a violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), (j), or (k), Florida Statutes, as is required for reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law. Although the record is not well-developed on this point either, it is more likely than not that the judgment is based on Thomson Homes' abandonment after entering into the contract. The judgment does not state this basis explicitly, but the complaint, on which the judgment is based, alleges abandonment. On December 23, 2002, Petitioner filed a Petition for Section 120.57 Formal Administrative Hearing. The petition, which was served on Respondent and the Whitesides' attorney in the circuit court action against Thomson Homes, Inc., contests the payment to the Whitesides and the automatic suspension of Petitioner's license. The petition contests the payment of the Whitesides' claim because they did not file certified copies of the final judgment and levy and execution documents and their judgment did not find that Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(g), (j), or (k), Florida Statutes. Additionally, the petition contests the automatic suspension because Ms. Thomson deceived Petitioner in violation of Section 489.132, Florida Statutes; Petitioner received no notice of the hearing that resulted in the Order to pay the Whitesides and suspend Petitioner's license; the Whitesides' claim is incomplete; and the Whitesides' judgment is not against Petitioner. Lastly, the petition seeks attorneys' fees under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. DOAH Case No. 03-3542 involves the claim of Richard and Kathleen Beltz. The Beltzes entered into a construction contract with Thomson Homes, Inc., on July 13, 1999. Pursuant to the agreement, the Beltzes agreed to pay Thomson Homes, Inc., $35,500 for a lot and $140,500 for a home, which Thomson Homes, Inc., agreed to construct to "substantial completion" within 120 days from the date of slab pour. After the Beltzes paid Thomson Homes, Inc., $17,283.70, Thomson Homes, Inc., never appeared at the closing, which had been scheduled for August 10, 1999. Nor did Thomson Homes, Inc., ever commence construction. The record does not disclose the extent, if any, to which Thomson Homes, Inc., completed construction. The Beltzes' discovery of Thomson Homes' failure to commence construction was hampered by the fact that they resided in California at the time. However, the Beltzes had obviously discovered the wrongful acts and omissions of Thomson Homes, Inc., by September 29, 1999, when they sent a letter to Petitioner demanding that he return the money that they had paid Thomson Homes, Inc. On October 19, 1999, the Beltzes signed a claim under the Recovery Fund, but the record contains no indication when the claim was filed. The completed questionnaire attached to the claim does not ask if the claimants had made a diligent effort to collect payment from the contractor. For reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law, a claim must follow a judgment, so, the Beltzes could not file a valid claim until they had obtained a judgment. Two years from September 29, 1999, at which point the Beltzes obviously knew of a violation, requires that they file the claim, on an already- secured judgment, prior to September 29, 2001. In a complaint filed February 4, 2002, the Beltzes commenced a legal action against Thomson Homes, Inc., but not Petitioner. The two-count complaint alleges a breach of contract, based on Thomson Homes' alleged "abandon[ment]" of the job "prior to any construction" and "fail[ure] and refus[al] to pay subcontractors and/or materialmen which resulted in Claims of Liens against Plaintiffs [sic] residence, which Defendant has failed and refused to satisfy," and unjust enrichment, based on Thomson Homes' alleged receipt of funds and failure to complete construction and pay for goods and services provided by subcontractors and materialmen. The Beltzes obtained a default final summary judgment against Thomson Homes, Inc., on May 22, 2002, for a total sum of $23,280.20, including attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The judgment states, in part: Subsequent to entering into the above referenced contract, Defendant performed some work on the project. However, Defendant breached its contract by accepting deposits and construction loan disbursements and thereafter abandoning the project and failing to pay subcontractors and materialmen for their labor, services and material provided. As a result of Defendant failing to pay Lienors who provided labor, service and materials to Plaintiffs [sic] real property, Construction Liens were recorded against same, which Plaintiffs had to satisfy. As a result of Defendant abandoning the project, Plaintiffs were compelled to retain a new contractor to complete their home at an additional cost over and above the original contract amount. As a direct result of Defendant abandoning the project, failing to pay Lienors, the misapplication of construction funds and financial mismanagement, Plaintiffs were forced to borrow additional funds from their construction lender. By unacknowledged statement dated August 23, 2002, Ms. Beltz declared that someone at the Florida Department of State advised her that Thomson Homes, Inc., was administratively dissolved on September 24, 1999. She also declared that she had found on the internet two pieces of real property owned by Thomson Homes, Inc., but they had been transferred within the past year. Ms. Beltz stated that she searched the database of the "Department of Motor Vehicles in Palm Beach County" in May 2000 and found no vehicles or boats registered to Thomson Homes, Inc. Lastly, she reported that she contacted the "Federal Aviation Association" at an unspecified time and found no "airplanes" registered to Thomson Homes, Inc. On November 26, 2002, Respondent issued an Order approving the Beltzes' claim of $17,222.78 against the Recovery Fund and automatically suspending Petitioner's license until he reimburses the Recovery Fund for the full amount of the paid claim. The Order, copies of which were served on all parties, states that the Beltzes are the Petitioners, the Recovery Fund is a Respondent, and "Larry Shimkus, d/b/a Thomson Homes, Inc.," is a Respondent. The Order advises that "you" may seek a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if material facts are in dispute. On December 27, 2002, Petitioner filed a Petition for Section 120.57 Formal Administrative Hearing. The petition, which was served on the Beltzes and Respondent, contests the payment to the Beltzes and the automatic suspension of Petitioner's license. The petition contests the payment of the Beltzes' claim because they did not submit all of the necessary exhibits with their claim; their judgment is against Thomson Homes, Inc., and not Petitioner; and their judgment does not find that Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(g), (j), or (k), Florida Statutes. Additionally, the petition contests the automatic suspension because Ms. Thomson deceived Petitioner in violation of Section 489.132, Florida Statutes; the Beltzes' claim is incomplete; and the Beltzes' judgment is not against Petitioner. Lastly, the petition seeks attorneys' fees under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. DOAH Case No. 03-3543 involves the claim of Keith and Karen Deyo. The Deyos entered into a construction contract with Thomson Homes, Inc., on October 31, 1998. Pursuant to the agreement, the Deyos agreed to pay Thomson Homes, Inc., $25,500 for a lot and $123,400 for a home, which Thomson Homes, Inc., agreed to construct to "substantial completion" within 120 days from the date of slab pour. Although the Deyos clearly suffered damages from the acts and omissions of Thomson Homes, Inc., the record does not disclose how much they paid the company, how much they had to pay unpaid suppliers and laborers, and how much construction the company completed before abandoning the job. Thomson Homes, Inc., began construction on the Deyos' home about 30-45 days after the parties signed the contract, but all work stopped in July 1999. In an undated complaint, the Deyos commenced a legal action against Thomson Homes, Inc., but not Petitioner. The two-count complaint alleges a breach of contract, based on Thomson Homes' alleged "abandon[ment] of the project prior to completion" and "fail[ure] and refus[al] to pay subcontractors and/or materialmen which resulted in Claims of Liens against Plaintiffs [sic] residence, which Defendant has failed and refused to satisfy," and unjust enrichment, based on Thomson Homes' alleged receipt of funds and failure to complete construction and pay for goods and services provided by subcontractors and materialmen. The Deyos obtained a final summary judgment against Thomson Homes, Inc., on March 15, 2000, for a total sum of $55,458.64, including attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The judgment states, in part: Subsequent to entering into the above referenced contract, Defendant partially performed work under the Contract. However, it breached its contract by accepting deposits and construction loan disbursements and thereafter abandoning the project and failing to pay subcontractors and materialmen for their labor, services and material provided. As a result of Defendant failing to pay lienors who provided labor, services and materials to Plaintiffs [sic] residence, construction liens were recorded against same, which Plaintiffs had to satisfy. As a result of Defendant abandoning the project, Plaintiffs were compelled to retain a new contractor to complete their home at an additional cost over and above the original contract amount. As a direct result of Defendant abandoning the project, failing to pay lienor's [sic], the misapplication of construction funds and financial mismanagement Plaintiffs have been forced to borrow additional funds from their construction lender. On April 27, 2000, the Deyos signed a claim under the Recovery Fund, but the record contains no indication when the claim was filed. A cover letter dated May 8, 2000, suggests that the Deyos mailed their claim a couple of weeks after signing it, so it was probably filed in mid-May 2000, although their questionnaire bears a revision date of November 2001, which would be beyond two years after the violation. In the questionnaire, the Deyos did not respond to the question asking if they had made a diligent effort to collect payment from the contractor. By an undated and unacknowledged statement, Mr. Deyo declared that someone at the Florida Department of State advised him that Thomson Homes, Inc., was administratively dissolved on September 24, 1999. He also declared that he had found on the internet two pieces of real property owned by Thomson Homes, Inc., but they had been transferred within the past year. Mr. Deyo stated that he searched the database of the "department of motor vehicles in Palm Beach County" in on April 14, 2000, and found no motor vehicles or boats registered to Thomson Homes, Inc. Lastly, he reported that he contacted the "Federal Aviation Association" on April 21, 2000, and found no "airplanes" registered to Thomson Homes, Inc. On January 22, 2003, Respondent issued an Order acknowledging the Deyos' claim of $55,458.64, approving the payment of the statutory limit of $25,000 against the Recovery Fund, and automatically suspending Petitioner's license until he reimburses the Recovery Fund for the full amount of the paid claim. The Order, copies of which were served on all parties, states that Mr. Deyo is the Petitioner, the Recovery Fund is a Respondent, and "Larry Shimkus, d/b/a Thomson Homes, Inc.," is a Respondent. The Order advises that "you" may seek a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if material facts are in dispute. On February 3, 2003, Petitioner filed a Petition for Section 120.57 Formal Administrative Hearing. The petition, which was served on Respondent and the Deyos' attorney who represented them in the action against Thomson Homes, Inc., contests the payment to the Deyos and the automatic suspension of Petitioner's license. The petition contests the payment of the Deyos' claim and suspension of Petitioner's license because Petitioner did not receive notice of the hearing at which Respondent entered the Order; the Deyos did not satisfy all requirements for payment from the Recovery Fund; their claim was not accompanied by certified copies of the levy and execution documents; their judgment is against Thomson Homes, Inc., and not Petitioner; their judgment does not find that Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(g), (j), or (k), Florida Statutes; and Ms. Thomson deceived Petitioner in violation of Section 489.132, Florida Statutes. Lastly, the petition seeks attorneys' fees under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. DOAH Case No. 03-3544 involves the claim of Sylvia Reinhardt. Ms. Reinhardt entered into a construction contract with Thomson Homes, Inc., on October 14, 1998. Pursuant to the agreement, Ms. Reinhardt agreed to pay Thomson Homes, Inc., $45,000 for a lot and $147,150 for a home, which Thomson Homes, Inc., agreed to construct to "substantial completion" within 120 days from the date of slab pour. After Ms. Reinhardt paid Thomson Homes, Inc., $144,769, directly and indirectly, by way of her construction lender, the house was little more than half complete when Thomson Homes, Inc., abandoned the job. Thomson Homes also failed to pay various suppliers that filed liens, so Ms. Reinhardt had to pay $8550.41 to RTS Roofing, $882 to Palm Beach Garage Door, and $3421.32 to Woodworks, Inc. In an undated complaint filed in 1999 (actual date illegible), Ms. Reinhardt commenced a legal action against Thomson Homes, Inc., but not Petitioner. The two-count complaint alleges a breach of contract, based on Thomson Homes' alleged "abandon[ment]" of the job "prior to completion" and "fail[ure] and refus[al] to pay subcontractors and/or materialmen which resulted in Claims of Liens against Plaintiff's residence, which Defendant has failed and refused to satisfy," and unjust enrichment, based on Thomson Homes' alleged receipt of funds and failure to complete construction and pay for goods and services provided by subcontractors and materialmen. Ms. Reinhardt obtained a final summary judgment against Thomson Homes, Inc., on March 28, 2000, for a total sum of $61,471.15, including attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The judgment states, in part: Subsequent to entering into the above referenced contract, Defendant performed work under the Contract. However, it breached its contract by accepting deposits and construction loan disbursements and thereafter abandoning the project and failing to pay subcontractors and materialmen for their labor, services and materials provided. As a result of Defendant failing to pay lienors who provided labor, services and materials for the construction of Plaintiff's residence, construction liens were recorded against same, which Plaintiff had to satisfy. As a result of Defendant abandoning the project, Plaintiff was compelled to retain a new contractor to complete their [sic] home at an additional cost over and above the original contract amount. As a direct result of Defendant abandoning the project, failing to pay lienor's [sic], the misapplication of construction funds and financial mismanagement Plaintiff has been forced to borrow additional funds from her construction lender. On April 17, 2000, Ms. Reinhardt filed a claim with the Recovery Fund. In response to a question asking if she had made a diligent effort to collect payment from the contractor, Ms. Reinhardt answered "yes" and explained: "Telephone calls were unanswered. Certified mail requesting response were [sic] never answered. Our attorney made written and personal contact with the owner and there was no intention to pay." The claim states that the violation took place in July 1999. By acknowledged statement dated July 21, 2000, Ms. Reinhardt declared that she had completed a "reasonable search and inquiry" and had not found any property or assets against which to satisfy her judgment. Ms. Reinhardt stated that someone at the Florida Department of State advised her that Thomson Homes, Inc., was administratively dissolved on September 24, 1999. She also declared that she had found one parcel of property owned by Thomson Homes, Inc., and valued at $115,387, but this had been sold to "Joan Thomson" on February 1, 2000. Ms. Reinhardt stated that she had found tangible personal property worth $5000. She added that she had not found any motor vehicles registered with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, nor had she found anything registered with the "FAA." On November 26, 2002, Respondent issued an Order acknowledging Ms. Reinhardt's claim of $58,661.44, approving the payment of the statutory limit of $25,000 against the Recovery Fund, and automatically suspending Petitioner's license until he reimburses the Recovery Fund for the full amount of the paid claim. The Order, copies of which were served on all parties, states that Ms. Reinhardt is the Petitioner, the Recovery Fund is a Respondent, and "Larry Shimkus, d/b/a Thomson Homes, Inc.," is a Respondent. The Order advises that "you" may seek a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if material facts are in dispute. On December 24, 2002, Petitioner served a Petition for Section 120.57 Formal Administrative Hearing. The petition, which was served on Ms. Reinhardt and Respondent, contests the payment to Ms. Reinhardt and the automatic suspension of Petitioner's license. The petition contests the payment of Ms. Reinhardt's claim and suspension of Petitioner's license because Ms. Reinhardt did not submit certified copies of the levy and execution documents; her judgment is against Thomson Homes, Inc., and not Petitioner; her judgment does not find that Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(g), (j), or (k), Florida Statutes; and Ms. Thomson deceived Petitioner in violation of Section 489.132, Florida Statutes. Lastly, the petition seeks attorneys' fees under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. DOAH Case No. 03-3545 involves the claim of Louis and Ann Mahoney. The Mahoneys entered into a construction contract with Thomson Homes, Inc., on June 28, 1999, for the construction of a home in Martin County. Pursuant to the agreement, the Mahoneys agreed to pay Thomson Homes, Inc., $32,000 for a lot and $149,000 for a home, which Thomson Homes, Inc., agreed to construct to "substantial completion" within 150 days from the date of slab pour. After the Mahoneys paid Thomson Homes, Inc., $14,500, directly and indirectly, by way of their construction lender, they suffered damages due to the acts and omissions of Thomson Homes, Inc., although, again, the record does not describe specifically how Thomson Homes caused them damage. In an undated complaint that bears no filing date, the Mahoneys commenced a legal action against Thomson Homes, Inc., but not Petitioner. The two-count complaint alleges a breach of contract, based on Thomson Homes' alleged "abandon[ment]" of the job "prior to completion" and "fail[ure] and refus[al] to pay subcontractors and/or materialmen which resulted in Claims of Liens against Plaintiffs [sic] residence, which Defendant has failed and refused to satisfy," and unjust enrichment, based on Thomson Homes' alleged receipt of funds and failure to complete construction and pay for goods and services provided by subcontractors and materialmen. The Mahoneys obtained a final summary judgment against Thomson Homes, Inc., on April 13, 2000, for a total sum of $43,084.49, including attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The judgment states, in part: Subsequent to entering into the above referenced contract, Defendant breached its contract by accepting Plaintiffs' deposits and construction loan disbursements and thereafter abandoning the project and failing to pay subcontractors and/or materialmen for their labor, and/or services provided. As a result of Defendant failing to pay lienor's [sic] who provided labor, services and materials for the construction of Plaintiffs [sic] residence, a construction lien was recorded against Plaintiffs' property, which Plaintiffs will have to satisfy. As a result of Defendant abandoning the project, Plaintiffs were compelled to retain a new contractor to complete their home at an additional cost over and above the original contract amount. As a direct result of Defendant abandoning the project, failing to pay lienor's [sic], the misapplication of construction funds and financial mismanagement Plaintiffs have been forced to borrow additional funds from their construction lender. On April 30, 2000, the Mahoneys signed a claim under the Recovery Fund. Although the claim form bears no filing date, the completed questionnaire attached to the claim was filed on May 3, 2000, so that is the likely filing date of the claim. In response to a question asking if they had made a diligent effort to collect payment from the contractor, the Mahoneys answered "yes" and explained: "This is explained in General Allegations, enclosed with this paperwork." Evidently, the reference is to a copy of the circuit court complaint. By acknowledged statement dated April 8, 2002, Mr. Mahoney declared that he had completed a "reasonable search and inquiry" and had not found any property or assets against which to satisfy his judgment. Mr. Mahoney stated that someone at the Florida Department of State advised him that Thomson Homes, Inc., was administratively dissolved on September 24, 1999. He also declared that an internet search had disclosed no property owned by Thomson Homes, Inc. Mr. Mahoney stated that the "department of motor vehicles in Palm Beach County" found no motor vehicles or boats registered to Thomson Homes, Inc., and that the "FAA" had found nothing registered to Thomson Homes, Inc. On February 28, 2003, Respondent issued an Order acknowledging the Mahoneys' claim of $38,185, approving the payment of the statutory limit of $25,000 against the Recovery Fund, and automatically suspending Petitioner's license until he reimburses the Recovery Fund for the full amount of the paid claim. The Order, copies of which were served on all parties, states that the Mr. Mahoney is the Petitioner, the Recovery Fund is a Respondent, and "Larry Shimkus, d/b/a Thomson Homes, Inc.," is a Respondent. The Order advises that "you" may seek a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if material facts are in dispute. On March 17, 2003, Petitioner served a Petition for Section 120.57 Formal Administrative Hearing. The petition, which was served on the Mahoneys and Respondent, contests the payment to the Mahoneys and the automatic suspension of Petitioner's license. The petition contests the payment of the Mahoneys' claim and suspension of Petitioner's license because they did not submit all of the required exhibits; their judgment is against Thomson Homes, Inc., and not Petitioner; their judgment does not find that Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(g), (j), or (k), Florida Statutes; and Ms. Thomson deceived Petitioner in violation of Section 489.132, Florida Statutes. Lastly, the petition seeks attorneys' fees under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. DOAH Case No. 03-3546 involves the claim of Dennis and Carolyn DeStefanis. The DeStefanises entered into a construction contract with Thomson Homes, Inc., on April 7, 1999. Pursuant to the agreement, the DeStefanises agreed to pay Thomson Homes, Inc., $137,455 for a home, which Thomson Homes, Inc., agreed to construct to "substantial completion" within 150 days from the date of slab pour. After the DeStefanises paid Thomson Homes, Inc., $15,765, directly and indirectly, by way of their construction lender, Thomson Homes, Inc. never did any work, except to contract with a surveyor, who, unpaid, filed a claim of lien against the DeStefanises's lot. In an undated complaint bearing no filing date, the DeStefanises commenced a legal action against Thomson Homes, Inc., but not Petitioner. The two-count complaint alleges a breach of contract, based on Thomson Homes' alleged "abandon[ment]" of the job "prior to completion" and "fail[ure] and refus[al] to pay subcontractors and/or materialmen which resulted in Claims of Liens against Plaintiffs [sic] residence, which Defendant has failed and refused to satisfy," and unjust enrichment, based on Thomson Homes' alleged receipt of funds and failure to complete construction and pay for goods and services provided by subcontractors and materialmen. The DeStefanises obtained a final summary judgment against Thomson Homes, Inc., on March 15, 2000, for a total sum of $36,701.87, including attorneys' fees and costs. The judgment states, in part: Subsequent to entering . . . into the above referenced contract, Defendant, [sic] breached its contract by accepting Plaintiffs [sic] deposits and construction loan disbursements and thereafter abandoning the project. [sic] As a result of Defendant abandoning the project, Plaintiffs were compelled to retain a new contractor to complete their home at an additional cost over and above the original contract amount. As a direct result of Defendant abandoning the project, the misapplication of construction funds and financial mismanagement Plaintiffs have been forced to borrow additional funds from their construction lender. On April 19, 2000, the DeStefanises filed a claim with the Recovery Fund. In response to a question asking if they had made a diligent effort to collect payment from the contractor, the DeStefanises answered "yes" and explained: "Went to DBPR Investigative Services, hired Attorney Barry W. Taylor [attorney in circuit court action], got Final Summary Judgment against Thomson Homes, Inc." On March 20, 2003, Respondent issued an Order acknowledging the DeStefanises' claim of $34,965.52, approving the payment of $15,765 against the Recovery Fund, and automatically suspending Petitioner's license until he reimburses the Recovery Fund for the full amount of the paid claim. The Order, copies of which were served on all parties, states that the DeStefanises are the Petitioners, the Recovery Fund is a Respondent, and "Larry Shimkus, d/b/a Thomson Homes, Inc.," is a Respondent. The Order advises that "you" may seek a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if material facts are in dispute. On April 7, 2003, Petitioner filed a Petition for Section 120.57 Formal Administrative Hearing. The petition, which was served on the DeStefanises and Respondent, contests the payment to the DeStefanises and the automatic suspension of Petitioner's license. The petition contests the payment of the DeStefanises' claim and suspension of Petitioner's license because they did not submit all of the required exhibits; their judgment is against Thomson Homes, Inc., and not Petitioner; their judgment does not find that Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(g), (j), or (k), Florida Statutes; and Ms. Thomson deceived Petitioner in violation of Section 489.132, Florida Statutes. The petition contests the suspension of Petitioner's license on the additional ground that he was not the qualifier for Thomson Homes, Inc., when it and the DeStefanises entered into the construction contract. Lastly, the petition seeks attorneys' fees under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. DOAH Case No. 03-3547 involves the claim of James and Donna Barr. The Barrs entered into a construction contract with Thomson Homes, Inc., on September 12, 1998. Pursuant to the agreement, the Barrs agreed to pay Thomson Homes, Inc., $30,000 for a lot and $140,900 for a home, which Thomson Homes, Inc., agreed to construct to "substantial completion" within 120 days from the date of slab pour. The Barrs paid Thomson Homes, Inc., $8500 in the form of a down payment. They or their construction lender paid Thomson Homes, Inc., considerably more money and suffered the imposition of claims of lien by unpaid subcontractors and suppliers, but, after negotiating with the bank, emerged from the transaction having lost only the $8500 down payment. Thomson Homes, Inc., obtained permits in April 1999 and started construction in May 1999. Before abandoning the job, Thomson Homes, Inc., worked on the home in May, June, and July of 1999. The Barrs and their lender did not make additional payments after the Barrs found the Thomson Homes, Inc., office empty on August 1, 1999. In a complaint filed October 6, 1999, the Barrs commenced a legal action against Thomson Homes, Inc., but not Petitioner. The two-count complaint alleges a breach of contract, based on Thomson Homes' alleged "abandon[ment]" of the job "prior to completion" and "fail[ure] and refus[al] to pay subcontractors and/or materialmen which resulted in Claims of Liens against Plaintiffs [sic] residence, which Defendant has failed and refused to satisfy," and unjust enrichment, based on Thomson Homes' alleged receipt of funds and failure to complete construction and pay for goods and services provided by subcontractors and materialmen. The Barrs obtained a final summary judgment against Thomson Homes, Inc., on May 8, 2000, for a total sum of $45,435.62, including attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The judgment states, in part: Subsequent to entering into the above referenced contract, partially performed work under the Contract. However, Defendant breached the contract by accepting Plaintiffs [sic] deposits and construction loan disbursements and thereafter abandoning the project and failing to pay subcontractors and/or materialmen for their labor services and materials provided. As a result of Defendant failing to pay lienors who provided labor, services and materials for the construction of Plaintiffs [sic] residence, construction liens were recorded against same, which Plaintiffs will have to satisfy. As a result of Defendant abandoning the project, Plaintiffs will be compelled to retain a new contractor to complete their home at an additional cost over and above the original contract amount. As a direct result of Defendant abandoning the project, failing to pay lienors, the misapplication of construction funds and financial mismanagement Plaintiffs will be forced to borrow additional funds from their construction lender. On June 2, 2000, the Barrs filed a claim under the Recovery Fund. In response to a question asking if they had made a diligent effort to collect payment from the contractor, the Barrs answered "yes" and explained: "I have looked into the assets of Thomson Homes Inc. and they do not have any. My affidavit is attached." The completed questionnaire states that the Barrs discovered the violation on August 11, 1999. They therefore failed to file their claim within two years of the discovery of the violation. By acknowledged statement dated May 23, 2000, Ms. Barr declared that she had completed a "reasonable search and inquiry" and had not found any property or assets against which to satisfy her judgment. Ms. Barr stated that someone at the Florida Department of State advised her that Thomson Homes, Inc., was administratively dissolved on September 24, 1999. She also declared she had found no property owned by Thomson Homes, Inc., in Palm Beach County. Ms. Barr stated that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles found no motor vehicles or boats registered to Thomson Homes, Inc., and that the internet site of the "FAA" had revealed nothing registered to Thomson Homes, Inc. On November 26, 2002, Respondent issued an Order approving the payment of the Barrs' claim of $8500 against the Recovery Fund and automatically suspending Petitioner's license until he reimburses the Recovery Fund for the full amount of the paid claim. The Order, copies of which were served on all parties, states that the Barrs are the Petitioners, the Recovery Fund is a Respondent, and "Larry Shimkus, d/b/a Thomson Homes, Inc.," is a Respondent. The Order advises that "you" may seek a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if material facts are in dispute. On December 27, 2002, Petitioner served a Petition for Section 120.57 Formal Administrative Hearing. The petition, which was served on the Barrs and Respondent, contests the payment to the Barrs and the automatic suspension of Petitioner's license. The petition contests the payment of the Barrs' claim and suspension of Petitioner's license because they did not submit a certified copy of the levy and execution documents; their judgment is against Thomson Homes, Inc., and not Petitioner; their judgment does not find that Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(g), (j), or (k), Florida Statutes; and Ms. Thomson deceived Petitioner in violation of Section 489.132, Florida Statutes. Lastly, the petition seeks attorneys' fees under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. DOAH Case No. 03-3633 involves the Joanne Myers. Ms. Myers entered into a construction contract with Thomson Homes, Inc., on February 7, 1999. Pursuant to the agreement, Ms. Myers agreed to pay Thomson Homes, Inc., $29,500 for a lot and $125,400 for a home, which Thomson Homes, Inc., agreed to construct to "substantial completion" within 120 days from the date of slab pour. Ms. Myers directly or indirectly paid Thomson Homes, Inc., $12,840. According to Ms. Myers' claim, Thomson Homes, Inc., never commenced construction before going out of business in August 1999. In an undated complaint bearing no filing date, Ms. Myers commenced a legal action against Thomson Homes, Inc., but not Petitioner. The two-count complaint alleges a breach of contract, based on Thomson Homes' alleged "abandon[ment]" of the job "prior to completion" and "fail[ure] and refus[al] to pay subcontractors and/or materialmen which resulted in Claims of Liens against Plaintiff's residence, which Defendant has failed and refused to satisfy," and unjust enrichment, based on Thomson Homes' alleged receipt of funds and failure to complete construction and pay for goods and services provided by subcontractors and materialmen. Ms. Myers obtained a final summary judgment against Thomson Homes, Inc., on May 31, 2000, for a total sum of $28,307.77, including attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The judgment states, in part: Subsequent to entering . . . into the above referenced contract, Defendant breached the contract by accepting Plaintiff's deposits and construction loan disbursements and thereafter abandoning the project and failing to pay subcontractors and/or materialmen for their labor services and materials provided. As a result of Defendant failing to pay lienor's [sic] who provided labor, services and/or materials for the construction of Plaintiff's residence, construction liens were recorded against same, which Plaintiff will have to satisfy. As a result of Defendant abandoning the project, Plaintiff will be compelled to retain a new contractor to complete her home at an additional cost over and above the original contract amount. As a direct result of Defendant abandoning the project, failing to pay lienor's [sic], the misapplication of construction funds and financial mismanagement Plaintiff will be forced to borrow additional funds from her construction lender. On September 18, 2000, Ms. Myers filed a claim with the Recovery Fund. In response to a question asking if she had made a diligent effort to collect payment from the contractor, Ms. Myers answered "yes" and explained: "Contractor closed corporate office--would not answer telephone calls." By letter dated November 30, 2000, from James Brogan of WEI Consulting Group to Ms. Myers, Mr. Brogan states that he had investigated the assets of Thomson Homes, Inc. Mr. Brogan found no bankruptcy filing by Thomson Homes, Inc., in the Southern District of Florida. Thomson Homes, Inc., was a party to 282 legal actions and owed tangible personal property taxes on furniture in a model home. On February 28, 2003, Respondent issued an Order approving the payment of Ms. Myers' claim of $14,080.66 against the Recovery Fund and automatically suspending Petitioner's license until he reimburses the Recovery Fund for the full amount of the paid claim. The Order, copies of which were served on all parties, states that Ms. Myers is the Petitioner, the Recovery Fund is a Respondent, and "Larry Shimkus, d/b/a Thomson Homes, Inc.," is a Respondent. The Order advises that "you" may seek a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if material facts are in dispute. On March 17, 2003, Petitioner filed a Petition for Section 120.57 Formal Administrative Hearing. The petition, which was served on Ms. Myers and Respondent, contests the payment to Ms. Myers and the automatic suspension of Petitioner's license. The petition contests the payment of Ms. Myers' claim and suspension of Petitioner's license because she did not submit evidence of a diligent search for assets; she did not submit all of the required exhibits; her judgment is against Thomson Homes, Inc., and not Petitioner; her judgment does not find that Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(g), (j), or (k), Florida Statutes; and Ms. Thomson deceived Petitioner in violation of Section 489.132, Florida Statutes. Lastly, the petition seeks attorneys' fees under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. On January 4, 2004, Ms. Myers died. However, the probate court of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, issued letters testamentary on her estate to James W. Myers III, in whose name Ms. Myers' claim is now being prosecuted. At the hearing, Petitioner contended that most, if not all, of the claims failed because the claimants had not exercised reasonable diligence in searching for assets, although Petitioner has dropped this contention in its proposed recommended order. In his petitions for hearing, Petitioner raised this contention only as to Ms. Myers. Ms. Myers, as well as the remainder of the claimants, made or caused to be made a reasonable search and inquiry for the assets of Thomson Homes, Inc. It is obvious that Thomson Homes, Inc., had no assets by the first letter from Mr. Brogan, dated November 30, 2000, nor did it have assets when Mr. Brogan issued his later letter on June 5, 2001, or when the attorney issued his affidavit on August 9, 2001. What is reasonable, in terms of a search, is dictated here by the fact that Thomson Homes, Inc., had no discoverable assets against which it could be made to answer for the considerable fraud that it perpetrated against these nine claimants. Respondent provided all of the parties, including Petitioner, with notice of its hearings at which it entered Recovery Fund orders. The petitions contend that Petitioner received no such notice in the Whitesides and Deyos cases. Although not litigated at the hearing, the presumption of notice, pursuant to the recitations set forth in each of Respondent's orders, results in a finding that Petitioner received timely notice in all cases.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order dismissing the claims against the Recovery Fund of the Beltzes and Barrs; paying the claims against the Recovery Fund of the remaining claimants, pursuant to the provisions of the orders of Respondent already issued in these cases and pursuant to the provisions of Section 489.143(1)-(6), Florida Statutes; and dismissing Respondent's request for the automatic suspension of Petitioner's license, pursuant to Section 489.143(7), Florida Statutes, without prejudice to any separate disciplinary proceedings that Respondent has commenced or may commence against Petitioner or others for the acts and omissions involved in these nine cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce G. Kaleita Law Office of Bruce G. Kaleita, P.A. 1615 Forum Place, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Adrienne C. Rodgers Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1023 Tim Vaccaro, Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, at times pertinent hereto, was a resident of Scott's Mobile Home Park (Park), located in Duval County, Florida. She lived in the Park with William Scott, the son of the Park owners, their child, and four other children who are Ms. Allen's natural children. The Petitioner, Mr. Scott, and the five children lived in a three-bedroom, double-wide mobile home, at the pertinent time in 1993. It had been provided by Mr. Scott's parents, the owners of the Park. The Department acquired certain property in Duval County, Florida, in 1993, as a result of an inverse condemnation action of which the property known as Scott's Mobile Home Park was a part. The Department, in due course, notified the Park residents that it would be closed and that efforts would be undertaken to relocate the residents. The Department staff obtained information from Ms. Allen and Mr. Scott, as well as from the other Park residents, in order to determine the amount of relocation assistance funds each displaced resident should receive, in accordance with the legal authority cited below. The Allen-Scott family were determined to be "90-day occupants" of the Park, as that term is used in applicable regulatory provisions. In calculating the relocation assistance amount to which the Petitioner may be entitled, the Department follows certain procedures set out in the Code of Federal Regulations, adopted by reference in its own rules and procedures. It must find replacement housing and then pay displaced residents a lump sum equal to 42 months of the difference between the new higher rent, if that be the case, and utility payments and what the displaced residents had been paying for rent and utilities prior to being displaced. The Department initially located replacement housing for the Allen- Scott family on Phillips Highway in Jacksonville, Florida. While the family had been living in a three-bedroom mobile home, the standards adopted by the Department for decent, safe, and sanitary housing for a family of seven required four bedrooms, which is the type residence the Department sought. The rent and utilities amount for the mobile home suitable to those standards, located on Phillips Highway, was $691.00 per month. The Allen-Scott family, however, desired a mobile home on the west side of Jacksonville, Florida. In order to calculate the amount due to the Petitioner, the Department had to subtract from the $691.00 per month figure for the property on Phillips Highway, the rent and utility total amount that the family had been paying at the Park. The evidence shows, however, that the living arrangements under which they occupied that dwelling in the Park were not the result of an arms-length transaction and that, in reality, the family was not paying any rent for the premises. Therefore, the Department had to impute a rental figure for them. Accordingly, Mr. William Kelbaugh, a Property Appraiser for the Department, made that imputed calculation, based upon the square footage of the Allen-Scott mobile home and the amount per square foot paid for other decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings in the same area, or comparable residences. After establishing that the average rent for mobile homes was approximately $.41 per square foot, Mr. Kelbaugh multiplied the square footage of the Allen-Scott family mobile home by that figure and, after making a deduction because of the condition of the Park, in terms of the actual rental value of the premises they had been living in, he arrived at a "market rental" of $375.00 per month. He then reduced the "market rental" figure by 15 percent based upon his observation of the premises, its condition, and his experience of 20 years or more in making such appraisals. The Department also had to include utility payments in its calculation. It received information from two utility companies about the family's utility bill over the prior 12-month period and computed an average monthly utility payment amount of $202.29. The Department also attempted to establish the family's income. It was required to do so because, in calculating the payment to be made for relocation assistance, the Department must subtract from the new rent and utility payment the smaller of the sums equal to the rent paid or, in the Petitioner's case, imputed, or 30 percent of gross monthly family income. In trying to determine their income amount, the Department asked the Petitioner and Mr. Scott to provide income information on its income certification form, which the Petitioner and Mr. Scott signed and dated March 10, 1993. The Petitioner represented that their income came from Aid to Families with Dependent Children and other welfare benefits, which are not considered income for purposes of the Department's calculation of relocation assistance. Mr. Scott represented that he earned $3,764.25 in income and $3,000.00 in "income from rental" for 1992, which is the year used in making the calculation. The Department asked repeatedly for verification of their income figures in the form of tax records, payroll stubs, or statements from employers. Mr. Scott, however, worked for his parents, the former owners of the Park. They were asked to provide pay stubs and other verification of his income but did not do so at any time during 1993. Relocating the family was a protracted affair because the family required a four-bedroom mobile home, and such dwellings for rental are scarce. On September 14, 1993, the Department delivered an updated income certification form, since the one that the Petitioner and Mr. Scott had signed in March 1993 had expired. The Petitioner signed that form on September 14, 1993, and Mr. Scott signed it on September 22, 1993. That form indicated that Mr. Scott's income was certified by him as gross wages and salaries equal to $3,764.25. No verification of this income had been provided, however, so the Department calculated the relocation assistance due the family by using the market rental figure of $375.00, plus $202.29 for utilities. The Petitioner and Mr. Scott refused to accept this figure and appealed the determination to the Department's "central office". While their appeal was pending in the Department's process, the Department, at the Petitioner's request, located another four-bedroom mobile home for rent on Beaver Road in Jacksonville, Florida. This was with the assistance of Robert Scott, Mr. William Scott's father. The Department re- calculated the Allen-Scott family relocation assistance eligibility supplement. The re-calculated amount was $6,161.82. That amount was presented to the Petitioner and Mr. Scott, but they refused to accept it. On December 7, 1993, Mr. Bud Eddleman, the Department's Administrator of Relocation Assistance, made his decision concerning the Petitioner's appeal and concluded that the $6,161.82 sum to be correct. On February 17, 1994, the Department received a handwritten note signed by Vivian Scott, William Scott's mother, stating that William Scott had been paid $842.25 in cash in 1992 and was furnished rent in lieu of salary equal to $3,000.00. (See Exhibit 8 in evidence). The Petitioner, thus, took the position that that was the totality of income of the family during the calculation period in question, as that relates to the calculation of the amount of relocation benefits they felt they should receive. The Department takes the position that this verification is not accurate and acceptable for a number of reasons. The Allen-Scott household had numerous possessions that suggested a lifestyle that could not be supported by a discretionary income of $842.25 annually. The family could apparently afford $202.79 per month as an average utility payment. Further, the family acquired a second car during the time period that Department employees were on the premises in the process of making its calculation and appraisal. The family had the funds to acquire and operate two cars, pay the utilities throughout 1993; and their personal property included certain items of antique furniture, at least four televisions, and three videocassette recorders. The Petitioner contended at hearing that Mr. Scott had no income because of the inverse condemnation proceedings because his work had been as a maintenance man for the operating Park. This is irrelevant in the context of relocation assistance, which concept is not designed to include considerations of whether the displacee is rendered unemployed by the taking of the property involved. It is also irrelevant factually because the year in question was 1992, and the relocation of people from the Park could not begin until 1993. Even then, Mr. Scott's maintenance duties would be needed for a certain period of time. Thirdly, there is also evidence that Mr. Scott worked on projects other than those located in the Park, for which he earned income. Mr. Scott did not provide tax returns, pay stubs, bank records, or a statement from his employer (his parents) despite numerous entreaties by the Department to do so. No more defining, verified evidence of the family income was offered at hearing. Accordingly, the income figures which the Petitioner provided are not credible. The family lifestyle and possessions evidence much more income than Mr. Scott would admit. The only evidence produced to verify Mr. Scott's income was sent from his mother some two months after the Department denied the "appeal". The statement is not credible, as Mrs. Scott alleged that in 1992, her son had been paid $842.25 for his work as a maintenance man. Mr. Scott's parents paid another resident of the Park $4,609.92 for performing the same type of work, at the same time. Further, the Petitioner testified inconsistently at hearing regarding income. She said on the one hand that Mr. Scott's parents "took the rent out of his paycheck", and on the other hand, said that he made approximately $127.00 per week as a maintenance man and Mrs. Scott "sometimes wrote him a check" and "would take out, you know, a little bit each week". This testimony demonstrates that, with the other evidence referenced above, the Allen-Scott family has not been forthcoming concerning its income. The totality of the evidence shows that Mr. Scott and his parents, as his employer, the source of the Petitioner's relevant income, had not been acting in good faith. Accordingly, it is reasonable to compute the relocation assistance payments by ignoring the 30 percent factor and instead merely subtracting the old rent and utilities from the new rent and utilities chargeable at the new premises occupied by the Allen- Scott family. The income figures presented by the Petitioner are simply unverified and are not credible. Another candidate for relocation assistance, Kirk Kostenko, a resident of the Park, refused to provide income verification. In his situation, as in that of the Allen-Scott family, represented by the Petitioner, the income figures presented by the Petitioner were not accepted by the Department. In the Kostenko situation, no relocation assistance was paid. While the Petitioner argued and made reference to other families allegedly receiving much larger sums for relocation assistance from the Park, the Petitioner produced no evidence that different standards or criteria were applied in those situations, as opposed to those applied to her family situation involved in the relocation assistance payment question. She adduced no evidence that would demonstrate that the Department had acted in a manner departing from the standards of its rules and procedures or in a manner aberrant from its normal policy in calculating the relocation assistance payments in the manner found above. The relocation assistance program is not a social welfare program based upon actual financial need of a family or based upon the number of dependents involved. Rather, it is a program to compensate persons forced to find replacement housing because the Department acquires their private property, either through eminent domain or inverse condemnation. The assistance is based upon what the family was paying for its rent and utilities and what it would have to pay for them after relocation. The final figure presented and supported by the Department in this proceeding was calculated by applying the regular, accepted criteria set out in the Department's rules, regulations and procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the relocation assistance benefit, which the Department proposes to award the Petitioner in the amount of $6,161.82, is reasonable and should be awarded. The Petition should be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 1st day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4899 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner presented no discreetly set forth proposed findings of fact. Rather, in essence, the Petitioner's post-hearing "pleading", in letter form, consists essentially of argument concerning the quantity and quality of evidence. Therefore, specific rulings on proposed findings of fact cannot be made. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbers 1-34 are accepted, to the extent consistent with those made by the Hearing Officer. Those proposed findings of fact which are not consistent with those made by the Hearing Officer are rejected as being either not supported by preponderant evidence of record, being irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary to the resolution of the disputed issues. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Emma Allen 3523-1 Alcoy Road Jacksonville, FL 32221 Thomas H. Duffy, Esq. Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Attn: Diedre Grubbs, M.S. 58 Thornton J. Williams, Esq. General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
