Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RC- 0042963. At no time material hereto did Respondent's license qualify "Energy Plus Roofing" with Petitioner. Notice of the final hearing herein was provided to Respondent at his last known address of record in Bradenton, Florida, as shown on his Election of Rights form. The notice was not returned by the post office as "undeliverable" or for any other reason. In April, 1988 Respondent entered into a contract to perform certain roofing work for John Beede at a contract price of $1,610. Respondent executed this contract on behalf of Energy Plus Roofing, and provided a ten year warranty on workmanship and materials. Beede paid the full contract price to Respondent for work performed, but Respondent failed to correct leaks in Beede's Florida room. In fact, after the job Beede had additional leaks in his Florida room. Respondent failed to respond to several calls from Beede for further corrective work under the ten year warranty. Finally, Beede had to have a "roof over" constructed to correct the leaks in his Florida room at an additional cost of $4,000. Respondent did not obtain any permit from Manatee County for the work he performed for Beede, although Manatee County requires contractors to obtain permits for such jobs in excess of $200. Additionally, Respondent did not register "Energy Plus Roofing" with Manatee County, although Manatee County does require such registration. In March, 1986 Respondent entered into a contract with Marie Allen for roof repair on her mobile home in Ruskin, Hillsborough County, Florida. Allen did not have any leaks in her roof at the time, but she was simply seeking preventive maintenance. Respondent contracted with Allen on behalf of Energy Plus Roofing to pressure clean her roof and "apply energy plus roof system to (her) existing roof" for a contract price of $1,000. Respondent provided a ten year warranty on workmanship and materials. After Respondent's crew pressure cleaned her roof, Allen began experiencing leaks, and she presently continues to have four leaks which she did not have before work was performed by Respondent. She has tried repeatedly to contact Respondent under the warranty, but has been unsuccessful. Respondent is not registered in Hillsbourough County, and he did not obtain any permits for the Allen job. Hillsborough County requires contractors to be registered and to obtain permits for jobs such as he performed on Allen's roof. The only name on Respondent's license is his own individual name, Emanuel Fred Mosley.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's registration for a period of one (1) year and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 upon Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 4th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0442 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3-8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 10-14 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 15-16 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Emanuel Mosley 5707 5th Street East Bradenton, FL 33507 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32201 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent's activity and conduct in the performance of a roofing contract constitutes abandonment of that contract in violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1979), and whether Respondent willfully or deliberately violated the Volusia County Building Code, thereby contravening Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), by failing to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction of the subject project. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and Respondent, the Petitioner's proposed recommended order and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaint signed October 21, 1981, Petitioner, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent and against his license as a registered roofing contractor. Respondent, Leonard L. Clark, is a registered roofing contractor who holds License No. RC 0020933 which has been issued by Petitioner. Respondent does business under the entity Clark Roofing. On January 15, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract with one Mae Coogan, to reroof her residence. The contract specifically required Respondent to "replace any bad wood," and provide a ten (10) year workmanship warranty. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Additionally, Respondent agreed to install a 1 x 2 inch strip and a brown aluminum facia at an extra cost of $200.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and testimony of John Coogan.) Mrs. Mae Coogan is an elderly woman and is incapacitated. Her son, John Coogan, who lives with her in her residence, advised her during the negotiations of the subject contract, and testified as a witness in the proceedings herein. Respondent and John Coogan's testimony establishes that construction on the subject project commenced on February 10, 1981, and ceased on March 28, 1981. At that time, based upon Respondent's representation that the job was complete, Mr. Coogan paid Respondent the entire $2,500.00 due under the terms of the contract. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Coogan discovered evidence of "bad" or "rotten wood." Mr. Coogan immediately apprised Respondent of this, whereupon Respondent initially told him that he would be back to the job site to take care of any problems that existed with the reroofing project. There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not there was a subsequent telephone conversation between Respondent and Mr. Coogan following a letter which Respondent found offensive. Respondent claims that there was such a conversation and that the parties became angry at each other. At that juncture, the parties were unable to resolve their differences. Efforts by the parties to resolve their differences reached a stalemate, and Respondent did not again visit the project site or otherwise inspect the claimed damaged by Mr. Coogan. Mr. Coogan, to substantiate his claim that there was in fact rotten or bad wood left exposed in the overhang, rafters and beams surrounding the roof, introduced several photographs which depicted the condition of the wood on the roof. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3.) Respecting the fact that there was rotten wood, as claimed by Mr. Coogan, in the rafters and overhang, Respondent admitted the existence thereof. There is also a question about the possibility of rotten wood being covered by Respondent's employees and not replaced as required by the contract. The particular area in question is a portion of a flat roof which sagged in several places. Mr. Coogan claims that he had been advised that this was due to rotten wood underneath the shingles in an area in which he specifically claims to have asked Respondent to allow him to inspect the exposed-wood surface prior to the time in which it was covered with asphalt shingles. Respondent's workers covered this area of the roof without permitting Mr. Coogan the opportunity to inspect it. Mr. Coogan testified that the roof continued to sag in the identical places where it sagged prior to the reroofing. In this regard, Respondent admits that he might have agreed to allow Mr. Coogan an opportunity to inspect the exposed roof once the shingles were removed and prior to the time that he recovered (reroofed) the flat roof. Respondent further testified that this was not due to any effort on his part to conceal or otherwise hide rotten wood and, in fact, he claimed to have covered or replaced any bad or rotten wood. In this regard, Mr. Coogan noticed at least four water leaks from his roof prior to the time that Respondent reroofed his mother's house; however, he testified, on cross-examination, that he has not seen any leaks since Respondent has completed the subject project. Bob McConnell, Volusia County Building Inspector for approximately five years, inspected the roofing job completed by Respondent for Mrs. Coogan on July 28, 1981. Mr. McConnell found that the roofing job did not comply with the contract in the following regards: The 1 x 2 inch strip beneath the brown aluminum facia, called for as an extra, was not installed; There was visible rot in the sheathing; A short hip (rafter) was replaced with unsound wood; and A rafter tail had visible rot. In this regard, Mr. McConnell, while also reporting that there were soft spots in the built-up roof, could not testify with certainty that they were the result of wood rot. Respondent testified that he has tried to contact Mr. Coogan on several occasions to correct any claimed deficiency. Respondent stands, at this time, willing to correct any deficiency that exists or to correct any problem which stems from his deviation from the contract. In this regard, Respondent has offered, and no offers, to remove the shingles from the entire roof and allow for it to be inspected by Respondent or any designated roofing contractor whom Coogan or Petitioner selects. Respondent will replace any "bad" or "rotten" wood which he has been claimed to have covered. However, Respondent expects to be paid for reroofing this job in the event that in an inspection reveals that no "bad" or "rotten" wood was covered as Mr. Coogan and Petitioner claim. Inspector McConnell has known Respondent in excess of twenty-five (25) years and is unaware of any claim that Respondent has performed any unworkmanlike or "shoddy" roofing repairs. Finally, in this connection, Respondent introduced letters from three (3) area builders who attested to Respondent's excellent workmanship. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 3.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years and that the term of probation be suspended for a period of sixty (60) days, during which time Respondent shall be allowed an opportunity to return to the Coogan residence and replace any existing exposed "rotten" or "bad" wood which should have been replaced pursuant to the terms of the contract. In the event that the Respondent properly completes the replacement of the rotten or damaged wood on this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of the probation be suspended. In the event that Respondent fails to properly complete this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of probation be instituted without the necessity of further hearing. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor in Miami, Florida, having been issued license no. RC 0047352. Respondent is the qualifying agent for All Central Roofing, Inc. In May 1986 All Central Roofing, Inc., entered into a contract with Richard Crisonino to perform certain roofing work on Crisonino's residence in Miami, Florida. The contract price was $3,374. All Central Roofing, Inc., thereafter began the roofing work on Crisonino's residence without obtaining a permit for that work from the local building department and without posting a permit on the job site. All Central Roofing, Inc., failed to obtain the required inspections by the local building department. After completing part of the work involved and after receiving substantial payment under the contract, All Central Roofing Company, Inc., ceased work on the Crisonino residence and failed or refused to complete the work, thereby abandoning the job. By her own admissions at the final hearing in this cause, Respondent does not possess a working knowledge of roofing or roofing contracting. She lacks even a basic fundamental understanding of roofing construction to the extent that it is impossible that she is fulfilling any of her responsibilities as a qualifying agent for All Central Roofing, Inc. Further, Respondent does not even know the number of employees working for All Central Roofing, Inc. Respondent has been disciplined by the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board, and Respondent's personal and business certificates have been revoked by that Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and revoking Respondent's registered roofing contractor license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 14th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harry E. Geissinger, Esquire 415 West 51st Place, Suite 201 Hialeah, Florida 33012 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, Brian D. Legate, should be disciplined on the charges in the Administrative Complaint, PCCLB Complaint No. C98-556. Specifically, the Administrative Complaint charged violations of Section 24(2)(d), (j), (m), and (n) of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida (1975), as amended, by: Count I - failure to obtain a building permit before beginning roofing work, contrary to the requirements of Section 104 of the Standard Building Code; Count II - covering rotted roof framing and building a roof that leaked, contrary to the requirements of Section 1509.1.2.1 of the Standard Building Code; and Count III - committing gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Brian D. Legate, is a licensed roofing contractor. He holds license C-4676 (RC0061241). On approximately March 16, 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Shutt requested an estimate from Legate for the repair of a leaking roof at their house at 7127 Third Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida. The leaking portion of the roof was a flat, built-up roof that was over the single-story living room of the house and adjacent to a second story bedroom; the other three sides of the perimeter of the leaking roof consisted of capped parapet walls. The roof and tile covered the flat portion of the roof and extended approximately ten inches up the inside of the parapet walls. The Shutts did not testify. Legate testified that the Shutts could not afford to completely rebuild and seal the parapets, re-roof, and re-tile. Instead, the Shutts wanted Legate to tear off the old roof down to the wood decking and re- roof to try to stop the roof leak; the Shutts planned to have someone else rebuild and seal the parapets and finish the roof with new tiles in about six months. Legate recognized that the Shutts' plan was not ideal; it would be difficult to maintain a watertight roof system until the parapets were rebuilt and sealed and the tiles replaced. Under the Shutts' plan, Legate would have to tack the new roof to the lower part of the parapet walls as best he could and tuck the upper edge of the new roof under the drip edge on the parapet wall to secure it temporarily until the parapet walls were rebuilt and sealed and the new tile installed. But Legate agreed to cooperate with the Shutts and give them an estimate for the work requested. Legate also recognized that it would have been best to install new flashing between the new roof and the parapet walls above the roof. The old metalwork serving as flashing on the existing roof system actually was a metal roof drip edge that was being misused as flashing. Legate recommended new flashing, but the Shutts declined because it would cost an additional $1,500 that they could not afford. On or about March 16, 1998, Legate gave the Shutts an estimate, without any new metalwork, for $4,000, plus $950 for new roof drains. Legate planned to install the roof drain bowls somewhat higher than the top of the new roof so that they would be flush with the ceramic tile when eventually installed over his roof. The Shutts accepted Legate's estimate for the roof work, a contract was signed, and the Shutts paid an inital $1,200 installment on March 19, 1998. Legate began work on the Shutts' roof approximately two weeks later. Legate also has a general contractor license, and he also made a proposal to repair wood and plaster inside the Shutts' house that had been damaged over the years by water leaking from the roof above. The Shutts could not afford this proposal and declined. Legate purposely delayed obtaining a building permit to give the Shutts more time to have the parapet walls rebuilt and the new tile installed under the six-month life of the building permit. As Legate's work proceeding, the Shutts paid an additional $1,200 on April 9, 1998, and another $2,000 on May 4, 1998. At approximately the time Legate invoiced the Shutts for the balance due under their contract, a dispute arose regarding the appearance of the roof drain bowls Legate installed. Legate agreed to remove the offending drain bowl, and order and install a type more to the Shutts' liking. On or about June 2, 1998, Legate applied for a building permit. He also requested that they file the notice of commencement so that he could call for a building inspection. At some point (the evidence is not clear when), Legate also wrote the Shutts by certified mail and enclosed a completed notice of commencement for them to sign and file. By letter dated June 5, 1998, an attorney representing the Shutts demanded that Legate not contact the Shutts again and not do any further work on their property because the work done was "inferior and was not of the type desired." Legate complied with the attorney's demand. He did not know exactly what the problem was but assumed it had something to do with the drain bowls. The Shutts did not file a notice of commencement until approximately June 24, 1998. On or about July 6, 1998, someone other than Legate (the evidence was not clear who, but probably the Shutts or their attorney) called for a building inspection of Legate's work. Legate did not know either that the notice of commencement had been filed or that someone had called for an inspection. For that reason, and also because he had been ordered off the job, Legate was not there on July 7, 1998, when a building inspector from the City of St. Petersburg inspected the roof. The Shutts invited the inspector inside the house where he inspected interior water damage and was able to inspect water- damaged wood laths (used to secure ceiling plaster), roof joists and framing beneath one of the roof drains from the underside. The inspector found the roof to be leaking and covering rotted roof framing. He was concerned that it might be dangerous to attempt to place the additional weight of ceramic tile over the roof, especially for the intended use as additional living space (an outdoor, second-story patio.) The inspector determined that it would be necessary to have an on-site inspection with the contractor and a copy of the roofing manufacturer's specifications for the type of roof system applied before final inspection. The building inspector did not contact Legate directly to inform him of the need for an on-site inspection; instead, he left a notice on the building permit at the premises. The inspector was unaware that Legate had been ordered off the premises and would not see the notice. Legate was not aware that an inspection had taken place and did not contact the building inspector. Not having heard from Legate, the building inspector returned to the premises on July 13, 1998, for final inspection without Legate. He saw essentially the same conditions as before and disapproved the work. Legate also was unaware of this second inspection. He never inquired with the City building department as to whether a notice of commencement had been filed or whether the roof had been inspected. On September 15, 1998, the Shutts had the roof inspected by an independent roofing consultant. The independent inspection confirmed the building inspector's findings and added that damage caused by the roof leaks in the meantime had caused additional damage to the roof itself, as well as to the roof substrate (decking) and framing, to the point that it could have been dangerous to attempt to place the additional weight of ceramic tile over the roof, especially for the intended use as an outdoor, second-story patio. The independent roof consultant testified that water was leaking where the metal drip edge had pulled away from the parapets, and there was a gap between the top of the roof material and parapets. He also testified that the drip edges were old and an improper choice for use as flashing where the roof material met the parapets. However, he could not testify as to when the drip edge pulled away from the parapets and apparently was not aware that, for financial reasons, the Shutts had rejected Legate's recommendation to install new metal flashing. The independent roof consultant testified that water also was leaking at the roof drain bowls because they were set too high, causing improper ponding on the roof in the vicinity of the drain bowls. He also testified that, even if the ceramic tile had been installed promptly after Legate's work, the roof drain bowls still should have been flush to the waterproof roofing material, not to the ceramic tile going in over it. However, Legate and his foreman testified that Legate's plan was acceptable and would have made the finished roof watertight. The evidence was not sufficient to prove Legate incorrect. Legate and his workers replaced some rotted roof decking before replacing the roof. They testified that they did not see any more rotted roof framing or joists. While some additional water damage inside the house was evident on September 15, 1998, including rotted ceiling wood lath and joists, it was not clear from the evidence how much was visible or evident to Legate and his workers from their vantage point working on the roof. It is clear, however, that Legate gave the Shutts an estimate for the repair of interior damage, to the extent visible, and that the Shutts declined the repairs for financial reasons. There was no evidence that the Shutts ever complained to Legate that the new roof was leaking. The last Legate heard from the Shutts was their attorney's letter demanding that he not contact the Shutts and not do any more work on the roof. Legate also was unaware of the building inspections and the independent inspection. Legate testified without contradiction that, if he had been aware of the leaks or had been asked, he certainly would have returned to stop the leaks, at least by temporary means, until the additional work contemplated by the Shutts could be done. Section 104.1.1 of the Standard Building Code (1997) requires a contractor to obtain the required building permit before beginning work. There was testimony that the City of St. Petersburg allows builders to "call in" an application for a building permit (by telephone), begin work, and actually obtain the permit within a day or two. But such a procedure would not allow for a delay of months. Section 1503.1.2.1 of the Standard Building Code (1997) requires that roof coverings "provide weather protection for the building at the roof." (The reference to Section 1509 in the Administrative Complaint apparently was a typographical error.) PCCLB has published "Guidelines for Disciplinary Action," which state that $750 is the "typical" penalty for the first "major" infraction and that $300 is the "typical" penalty for the first "minor" infraction. "Major" and "minor" infractions are not defined. The Guidelines also provide that the PCCLB shall consider aggravating and mitigating factors and may take any of the following actions: (1) suspension for a time certain (with possible permission to complete any uncompleted contracts); (2) revocation; or (3) an administrative fine not to exceed $1,000 per count.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Brian D. Legate, guilty under Count I, fining him $300 under Count I, and dismissing Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 25th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Williams Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 Brian Legate 5901 40th Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33709
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Linda Ratliff, d/b/a Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Respondent), violated provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (2009),1 as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 21, 2010, issued by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner or Department), and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting, pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of this case, a certified roofing contractor, license number CCC 058307. Respondent’s license is currently in “probation, active” status. Respondent’s address of record is 2023 Shoreland Drive, Auburndale, Florida 33823. Linda Ratliff, individually, is the licensed, primary qualifying agent for Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Suncoast). J. Ratliff works in the family business, and has done so for approximately 17 years. As the primary qualifying agent for Suncoast, Linda Ratliff is responsible for the supervision of all operations of the business. Such operations include, but are not limited to, field work at contract sites, financial responsibility for the entity, and all contractual obligations of the company. In this case, the only contractual obligation in dispute is in relation to a contract between Respondent and Ray and Loretta Noble. On or about February 25, 2009, Respondent entered into a contract (the contract) with Ray and Loretta Noble. The contract described the work to be performed. The address for the property was identified as 1021 and 1023 Brunell Road, Lakeland, Florida. The Noble property was a duplex, and the contract required the owner to pay $6,800.00 “when finish with work.” The terms of the contract specified that Respondent would: remove the old, flat roofing; replace felt with glass base; fix any rotten wood; recover the roof with 1.5 Iso Board installation and Rubber Bitumen; replace roof stacks with new stacks; obtain the permit; torch down Bitumen; install 12-year manufacturer warranty on shingles, 12 years on Rubber Bitumen, 15 TPO; provide a five-year warranty on labor; clean-up and haul off all trash from roof; roll yard with magnetic roller; provide professional job supervision, and re-shingle the front of the apartment. Respondent applied for and received a building permit for the Noble contract on or about February 27, 2009. Thereafter, Respondent proceeded with work on the property. On or about March 3, 2009, Respondent requested payment from Mr. Noble regarding completion of the roof. J. Ratliff, acting in his capacity as an agent for Respondent, represented to Mr. Noble that the job was finished and that payment was due and owing. Based upon Mr. Ratliff’s representations, Mr. Noble believed that the roof had passed inspection, and that the roof had been installed as presented in the contract. Accordingly, Mr. Noble paid Respondent the full contract price for the job. Unbeknownst to Mr. Noble, the new roof did not pass inspection. In fact, the roof never passed inspection. Initially, Respondent failed to perform minor work to ensure that the roof was water tight. For each deficiency identified by a city inspector, Respondent returned to the job site and made minor repairs. Ultimately, the job could not pass inspection due to the placement of air-conditioning units on the roof of the structure. Respondent did not remove the units prior to installing the new roofing system. In order to assure a water- tight roof, the units would have needed to be removed so that roofing materials could be place underneath. Afterward, the units would have to be re-positioned on the roof. Instead, Respondent sealed around the existing air conditioners as best as could be done, but Respondent’s work did not prevent water from intruding below. After a series of failed inspections, on or about July 7, 2009, city officials, Respondent, and the property owner met at the job site to determine what could be done to cure the roof problems. City officials advised the property owner that the air-conditioning units would need to be moved to allow the installation of roofing material and re-set afterwards. Mr. Noble did not want to incur the cost of the additional project. Respondent also refused to correct the job so that it could pass inspection. Respondent advised Mr. Noble that it would cost an additional $800.00 to have a licensed person remove the units and re-set them. Respondent and Mr. Noble reached an impasse and neither would compromise. Respondent never returned to the job site, and did not obtain an acceptable inspection for the work performed. Eventually, Mr. Noble had another company re-roof the structure and incurred an additional $7,400.00 in roofing expenses. Respondent did not refund any of Mr. Noble’s money, nor did Respondent honor the terms of the contract. The roof failed not fewer than seven inspections and several of the failures were unrelated to the issue associated with the air- conditioning units. The investigative costs for this case totaled $325.90. Respondent has prior disciplinary action against the license, as noted in Petitioner’s Exhibit C. Respondent’s claim that an additional licensee would have been required to remove the air-conditioning units and re- set them, is not mitigation of the circumstances of this case. Respondent had the option of not undertaking a project that required the removal of the air-conditioning units, in order to assure a water-tight result. As the licensed party, Respondent knew or should have known how to install a water-tight roofing system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of law found in Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII. Based upon the guidelines, past disciplinary actions against the Respondent, and a totality of the circumstances, it is further recommended that an administrative fine in the amount of $5000.00 be imposed for the violations noted above. Also, it is recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended for six months. Finally, it is recommended that Respondent be required to reimburse Petitioner for the investigative and other costs incurred in this case to the full extent allowed by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what punitive action should be taken against Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a roofing contractor. He is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, licensed to engage in the roofing contracting business in the State of Florida. He has held license number CC C049569 since 1989. In the eight years that he has been licensed, he has been disciplined once. On January 28, 1993, Respondent was issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation alleging that, "on the 8th day of July, 1992, and the 19th day of August, 1992, [he] did violate the following provisions of law: Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1991), by violation of Section 489.119(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), by committing the following act(s): failing to include a license number on a contract and failing to include a license number on an advertisement at: 771 S.W. 61st Terrace, Hollywood, Florida 33023." Respondent did not contest these allegations. Instead, he chose to pay a $200.00 fine for having committed the violations alleged in the citation. Respondent is now, and has been since February 21, 1990, the primary qualifying agent for Ray Guy Roofing, Inc., a roofing contracting business owned by Respondent and located in Hollywood, Florida. Respondent's brother, Rodney Guy (Rodney), is also in the roofing business in the South Florida area. At all times material to the instant case, Rodney engaged in such business under the name "Hot Rods Roofing." In addition to having his own business, Rodney also, on occasion, worked for Respondent. In August of 1992, Rodney entered into a written agreement (Contract) with Christopher Klein in which Rodney agreed, for $7,000.00, to replace the damaged roof on Klein's residence in Dade County1 with a new roof with a seven-year warranty (Project). Subsequently, the Contract price was increased $500.00 to $7,500.00 by mutual agreement. Prior to the commencement of work on the Project, Respondent verbally agreed to assume Rodney's obligations under the Contract. Klein paid the Contract price in full, by check, in two installments. Both checks were made out to Hot Rods Roofing (in accordance with the instructions Klein was given) and cashed by Rodney. The second check contained the following handwritten notation made by Klein: "payment in full - roof - includes Ray Guy Roofing, Inc." The Project was completed on or before September 18, 1992. The work was done by Respondent and the employees of Respondent's roofing business, including Rodney. Following the completion of the Project, the roof started to leak. Klein thereafter unsuccessfully attempted to contact Respondent and Rodney by telephone to apprise them of the situation. On or about August 1, 1993, Klein sent a letter to Respondent and Rodney advising them of the leaks in the roof and requesting that they "send someone to fix them." Neither Respondent nor Rodney responded to Klein's letter. Klein therefore hired someone else to fix the leaks. Leaks subsequently redeveloped in the roof. Klein again unsuccessfully attempted to contact Respondent and Rodney by telephone to bring the matter to their attention. On or about March 22, 1994, Klein sent Respondent and Rodney a letter, which read as follows: As you will recall, you acted as partners in the installation of a new roof at my house after Hurricane Andrew. I have developed a leak and I have been attempting to contact both of you for over a month in connection with warranty work related thereto. I am surprised that you have ignored me because, as you will recall, my hiring you resulted in your obtaining at least 3 other jobs on my street. Please contact me within one week to schedule the repair. If I do not receive word from you, I will be forced to hire another roofing company and I will thereafter send you the bill. The bill will be for the roof repairs and to repair interior damage. Neither Respondent nor Rodney responded to Klein's request. Klein made temporary repairs to the roof at his own expense. Klein, who is a member of The Florida Bar, subsequently filed a complaint in Dade County Court (in Dade County Court Case No. 95-7415 CC 02) seeking a judgment for damages, plus interest and costs, against Ray Guy Roofing, Inc., Respondent, and Rodney for breach of contract (Count I), negligence (Count II), and breach of warranty (Count III). Respondent was served with a copy of the complaint on or about May 12, 1995. Shortly thereafter Klein received a telephone call from Respondent, who wanted to speak to Klein about the lawsuit. During their telephone conversation, they agreed to meet at 5:30 p.m. on May 17, 1995, at Klein's residence to discuss the possibility of settling the lawsuit. Respondent did not show up for the meeting, nor did he telephone or otherwise communicate with Klein to explain his absence. Respondent also failed to respond to Klein's complaint.2 On June 30, 1995, pursuant to Klein's written request, a Final Default Judgment was entered against Respondent and Ray Guy Roofing, Inc.,3 in Dade County Court Case No. 95-7415 CC 02. The Final Default Judgment provided as follows: THIS CAUSE came before the Court this date on Plaintiff's Motion for Final Default Judgment against Defendants Raymond Guy, Individually and Ray Guy Roofing, Inc., and the Court having noted that said Defendants were duly served and defaulted herein, and the court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is thereupon ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is granted and that Plaintiff, Christopher J. Klein, hereby recovers from Defendants, Ray Guy Roofing, Inc., and Raymond Guy, Individually, the principal sum of $5,500.00 plus costs in the sum of $198.00, making a total sum due of $5,698.00, for which sum let execution issue. Klein sent a copy of the Final Default Judgment to Respondent by United States Mail on or about July 21, 1995. The Final Default Judgment was not appealed, and it has not been vacated, set aside, discharged, or satisfied, in whole or in part.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violation of Section 489.129(1)(r), Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and (2) disciplining Respondent for having committed this violation by requiring him to: (a) pay a fine of $1,000.00; submit proof of satisfaction of the Final Default Judgment entered in Dade County Court Case No. 95-7415 CC 02; and reimburse the Department for all reasonable costs associated with the Department's investigation and prosecution of the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 25th day of September, 1997.
The Issue Whether Respondent's contractor license should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapters 489 and 455, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, James Cooper, was at all times material to this action licensed by the State of Florida as a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC0066905. Mr. Cooper's license is currently classified "Inactive, Issued (09/05/97)." Around March 1, 1996, Marshall Moran was contacted by Julia Jones regarding repairs to the leaky roof on her home located at 209 Cresent Drive, DeFuniak Springs Walton County, Florida. Ms. Jones' home was over one hundred years old with a steep metal roof. The roof she wished repaired was over the enclosed sleeping porch of her house. Over the last ten years, she had various contractors attempt to fix the leak in the sleeping porch roof. These attempts occurred, on average, more than one time per year. The leak always returned. Marshall Moran is an unlicensed and unregistered roofing contractor. Mr. Moran has been a roofing contractor since before the licensure requirements for contractors became law. He elected not to become licensed under those statutes. However, he did have the experience and skills necessary to repair Ms. Jones' roof. Marshall Moran discussed the job with Ms. Jones. Mr. Moran recommended the entire section of the roof be rebuilt and described the anticipated repairs. Ms. Jones would not allow the entire section of roof to be repaired. She thought only the small section where the leak was apparent needed repair. Unknown to Ms. Jones and prior to beginning the work, Mr. Moran contacted Respondent to tell him of Ms. Jones' job and to see if Respondent wanted to do the job. Respondent couldn't do the job with his crew but offered to allow Mr. Moran to "work under his license." Respondent was pursuing a large commercial roofing contract around the same time as the events at issue here. He wanted to keep Moran's crew together in order to be able to complete the large commercial job. He held the crew together by enabling Moran to do the construction at Julia Jones' residence in consideration for taking legal responsibility for the Jones' job. Respondent did not hire Mr. Moran as his employee. Respondent knew Mr. Moran was not registered or certified to practice contracting. He also knew Mr. Moran was well qualified to perform the work on the Jones' job. Respondent admits that he knew that he should not pull permits for anyone, but that he did it just this one time in order to keep the crew together. On March 15, 1996, Respondent obtained City of DeFuniak Springs, Florida, building permit number 1379 for the roof repairs to Ms. Jones' residence. On the application for said building permit, Respondent represented himself (doing business as Cooper Roofing and Repair) as the contractor of record on the aforesaid project. Respondent intended to and did eventually take legal responsibility for the Jones' job. However, he did not supervise Mr. Moran or his crew. Additionally, Ms. Jones was never informed of Respondent's involvement. More importantly, Ms. Jones never contracted with Respondent for either Respondent or his company to perform roof repairs on her home. On March 21, 1996, Mr. Moran provided an estimate for repair of the portion of Ms. Jones' roof she felt needed repair. The estimate bears the name of "AAA Metal Works" and "Marshall Moran." AAA Metal Works was Mr. Moran's company. The estimate does not reference either Respondent or his company. The estimated cost to repair Ms. Jones roof was $2,785. Based on the estimate, Ms. Jones entered into a contract with Mr. Moran and AAA Metal Works to perform the repairs to her roof discussed above. Moran and his crew substantially completed the repairs to Ms. Jones' roof in a few days. However, the roof continued to leak after Moran and his crew ended their work. The continuing leak was not due to any incompetence on the part of Respondent or Moran. Ms. Jones paid for the repairs with two checks made out to AAA Metal Works. The checks were in the amounts of $3,500 and $4,350. Respondent did not receive any of the money for the Jones' job. His only expense was the fee for the building permit. All other expenses were paid for by Mr. Moran. At no time during the formation or performance of the contract with Marshall Moran did Julia Jones have any contact with or knowledge of involvement by Respondent. In fact, Respondent only drove by the job site one time. As indicated, the roof continued to leak. Ms. Jones contacted Mr. Moran on approximately 5-6 occasions notifying him of the continued leaks. Mr. Moran would return to Ms. Jones' home and inspect the problems, but was unable to stop the leaks to Jones' satisfaction. It is not clear whether Mr. Moran kept Respondent informed of these continued service calls. Approximately one year after completion of the initial repairs on Ms. Jones' roof, Respondent received a call from Ms. Jones' tenant and friend, Sharon Jenks, who called posing as a potential new client. Ms. Jenks had gotten Respondent's name from the building permit. Ms. Jenks called Respondent because the house was still leaking approximately one year after the repair was done and intervening visits by Marshall Moran had not fixed the problem. Ms. Jenks arranged for Respondent to visit Ms. Jones' home. Respondent did not recognize the house when he arrived and drove past it. When Ms. Jenks showed Respondent the building permit bearing his name, Respondent showed surprise. He returned the next day with Mr. Moran. Respondent, Mr. Moran, Ms. Jenks and Ms. Jones all met regarding the continued leaking. Respondent and Mr. Moran told Ms. Jones that the metal on the roof was "bad" and needed to be replaced to stop the leaks on the "sleeping porch." Understandably, Ms. Jones did not want to deal any further with Mr. Moran or Respondent and would not permit them to make the recommended necessary repairs. Ms. Jones sued both Respondent and Mr. Moran in a civil action styled: Julia R. Jones v. James K. Cooper and Marshall Moran, Case Number 97-0040-CC, in the County Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Walton County, Florida. Following a judge trial, a Final Judgment was entered in favor of Respondent and Mr. Moran on December 9, 1997. Mr. Moran was charged with contracting without a license in violation of Section 489.127, Florida Statutes (1995), in State of Florida v. Marshall Moran, Case Number 97-0549-CF, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Walton County, Florida. That charge was dismissed by Circuit Judge Lewis Lindsey on February 3, 1998.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Board should find Respondent guilty of violating Chapters 489 and 455, Florida Statutes, and impose an administrative fine of $500.00 on Respondent DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Maureen L. Holz, Esquire Willams and Holz, P.A. 458 West Tennessee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. LaDon Dewrell, Esquire 207 Florida Place, Southeast Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32549 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, James S. Stroz, held registered roofing contractor license number RC 0034849 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He was first licensed in November, 1979, and at that time qualified under the name of Stroz Roofing. A change in status application was later filed to qualify Stroz Roofing, Inc., 13696 Exotica Lane, West Palm Beach, Florida. Although licensed as a roofing contractor, respondent's firm only performs work on wood shakes or shingles. He does not do hot roofs or flat roofs, which is another speciality in the roofing business. While working for a roofing firm in1979, Stroz became acquainted with Lacy Davis, an unlicensed individual who specialized in flat roof work. When Stroz started his own roofing company in 1983, he began contracting out the flat roof work to other licensed roofing contractors. Lacy Davis learned of this and approached Stroz offering his services on the flat roof work. Stroz knew Davis was unlicensed and would not initially hire him, but Davis gave him a business card of Henry Haywood, a licensed roofing contractor in Palm Beach County and explained he and Haywood were partners and that the work and permitting would be done under Haywood's license. In actuality, Haywood had not authorized Davis to use his business cards, or topull permits under his name. Indeed, Haywood had no knowledge of Davis' activities. Without verifying the truth of Davis' representations, and accepting them instead at face value, Stroz agreed to hire Davis to perform his flat roof work. Between January 20, 1983 and September 30, 1984, Stroz performed some twenty-one jobs using Davis for the flat roof work. At all times, Stroz was under the impression that the work was being done under Haywood's license and that his activities were lawful. Stroz made all checks for the work payable to Lacy Davis or Lacy Davis Roofing. He did this because Davis told him he frequently had difficulty reaching Haywood to cash the checks, and because the business bank account was in Davis' own name. A few of the checks carried a notation at the bottom that payment was for work by Haywood Roofing, but most made no reference to Haywood. Stroz pulled all permits on their jobs reflecting that Haywood Roofing was the licensed contractor. Of the twenty invoices given by Davis to Stroz for the twenty-one jobs, only four were on invoices printed with Haywood's name. The remainder had various other names including "Lacy Davis Roofing," "Lacy Davis" and "Lacy Davis and Benny Guy Roofing Contractors." None of these were licensed as roofing contractors by petitioner. In June, 1984, a member of Davis' crew was injured and it was discovered Davis had no insurance. Stroz's insurance paid the claim, but an investigation ultimately determined that Davis was unlicensed and had no authority to act on Haywood's behalf. This led to the issuance of the administrative complaint herein. Respondent has fully cooperated with petitioner, and in fact voluntarily disclosed one job with Davis that petitioner's investigation had failed to uncover. He admits he was negligent in not checking out the representations of Davis, but he never intended to violate the law. No consumer was harmed in any way by Davis' work, and there are no complaints concerning the quality of the jobs in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in the administrative complaint, and that he be fined $500 to be paid within thirty days from date of the final order rendered in this proceeding. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1985.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent conducted business through an entity known as C. J. Home Improvement Corporation, which was also not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. In 1995, Joseph Pallant was one of the owners and the manager of a commercial building located at 3700 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. In January 1995, Mr. Pallant entered into an agreement to lease the building for a term of ten years to a non-profit organization named PWAC, an acronym for People With Aids Coalition. PWAC had an office in the adjacent block and wanted to operate a thrift shop at the subject premises. The roof on the subject building leaked. The parties agreed that Mr. Pallant would pay to replace the roof and that PWAC would thereafter be responsible for maintenance. The officers of PWAC informed Mr. Pallant that they wanted Respondent to do the roofing work. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Mr. Pallant knew that Respondent was unlicensed. It is clear that Mr. Pallant and Respondent knew one another prior to January 1995. Based on Mr. Pallant's testimony, which the undersigned finds credible, it is found that Mr. Pallant knew that Respondent was in the building repair business, but that he did not know Respondent was unlicensed. Respondent's assumption that Mr. Pallant knew he was unlicensed is not as credible as Mr. Pallant's direct, unequivocal testimony that he had no such knowledge. After having several conversations with Mr. Pallant by telephone and at the building, Respondent prepared a written proposal on his business form to do the work necessary to replace the roof. The proposal was submitted to PWAC. The proposal described in detail the work that would be done and the materials that would be furnished, the time frame for the work, and the price. The price was set at $6,183.00 plus $400.00 if certain additional work would have to be done on certain drains. PWAC was provided a copy of the proposal that was dated February 25, 1995. Respondent signed this proposal and affixed the corporate seal of his business entity. Under Respondent's signature was the phrase "personally individually guaranteed." At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent knew that Mr. Pallant was one of the owners of the building and that he would be paying for the roofing work. On February 27, 1995, Respondent and Mr. Pallant met. Respondent gave Mr. Pallant an unsigned copy of the written proposal (dated February 27, 1995, but otherwise identical to the form given PWAC, but dated February 25, 1995). After they discussed the work, Mr. Pallant accepted the proposal and gave Respondent a check made payable to C. J. Home Improvement in the amount of $3,100.00. Respondent accepted this check and deposited the proceeds of the check in his company's bank account. Without the prior knowledge or consent of Mr. Pallant, Respondent attempted to subcontract the roofing job to a licensed roofer named Don Palmier.1 No work was started on the job. In March 1995, Mr. Pallant met with representatives of PWAC and Respondent to discuss the lack of progress. As a result of that meeting, Mr. Palmier refused to proceed with the roofing job2 and Mr. Pallant learned that Respondent was unlicensed and could not do the work. During the course of the meeting PWAC cancelled its lease. Mr. Pallant subsequently filed suit against C. J. Home Improvement for the return of the $3,100.00. Despite obtaining a final judgment for that sum plus costs and fees, the Respondent has not satisfied any portion of the judgment. As of April 23, 1998, the Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution in this case, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $269.62.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein; finds Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; dismisses Count II of the Administrative Complaint; imposed an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $2,500.00; and assesses costs against Respondent in the amount of $269.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1998
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated the charged provisions of Section 489.129, Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what penalty should be imposed for his conduct?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and has been, at all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CCC 132557. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the primary qualifying agent for JCSI Certified Roofing Contractors (JCSI), which has been issued certificate of authority number QB 47568. On or about April 7, 2006, Respondent, doing business as JCSI, entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. John Shields to install a stone coated steel shingle roof at 518 Ponte Vedra Boulevard, in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The contract amount was $50,850.00, and the contract included the following work: Scope of Work: Steel roof to be mechanically fastened on a single ply system and consist [sic] of the following: Peel & Stick base sheet (same as Ice and water Shield), stone coated drip edge. Mechanically fasten roof panels according to wind chart specifications. Matching stone coated trim. All flashing to be minimum 26 gauge. Vents, valley metals, and flashing as required. Stone coated steel roof, color selection by Client. Steel roof to be installed to manufacturers wind chart specifications. All work to be done in a workmanlike manner with complete job cleanup of roofing debris placed in on-site container provided by Owner/Contractor. The draw schedule in the contract was listed as follows: Deposit $5,000.00 at signing (dry- in);$15,000.00 order materials; $15,600.00 At beginning of production, Balance at completion. The contract did not contain Respondent's license number or the certificate of authority number of JCSI Certified Roofing Contractors. The Shields paid the initial deposit of $5,000.00 upon signing the contract. Within a couple of weeks, Respondent performed the dry-in for the roof. On August 17, 2006, the Shields paid an additional $15,000.00 with check number 1461, which was deposited into JCSI's account August 18, 2006. In total, the Shields paid $20,000.00 toward the contract price. Respondent also installed flashing for the project, although the timing of this part of the job is unclear from the record. However, from testimony presented, it is found that the flashing was installed sometime in August 2006, in the two weeks before or after the August 17, 2006 payment. No other work was performed on the job by Respondent or JCSI. Respondent ordered materials for the roof from Gerard Roofing in June 2006. However, he did not receive the materials from the company because his credit with Gerard was over- extended. He claims that he reported this to the Shields and suggested that they pay for the materials directly and deduct that amount from the contract price, and he would finish the job. The order form from Gerard Roofing Technologies indicates that the roofing materials ordered in June 2006 totaled $21,570.11. Assuming that the order form represented materials for the Shields job only, had the Shields agreed to Respondent's proposed alteration in the contract, they would have paid $41,570.11 toward the completion of the roof at a time when the only work performed was the initial dry-in and possibly the flashing installation. This would have represented 81.75% of the contract price. As it is, the Shields had paid 39.33% of the contract price already. The Shields did not agree with Respondent's proposed alteration of the contract. By February 2007, no additional work had been performed on the roof and Respondent did not re-order the roofing materials. At that point, Mr. Shields terminated the contract. The investigative costs incurred by the Department, not including those associated with an attorney's time, are $288.22.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 489.129(1)(i), (j) and (m), Florida Statutes, as charged in Counts I, IV and VI of the Administrative Complaint; finding that Respondent did not violate Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., (i) and (o), Florida Statutes, as charged in Counts II, III and V of the Administrative Complaint and dismissing those counts; imposing an administrative fine of $250 for Count I; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500 and placing Respondent's license on probation for a period of four years for Count IV; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500 for Count VI; requiring restitution in the amount of $15,000.00 to John and Christine Shields2/ in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.001(5); and imposing costs in the amount of $288.22. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 2009.
