The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a certified roofing contractor in the state of Florida should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Christopher G. Coxon, held a license as a certified roofing contractor, number CGC029604. On or about November 15, 1988, Respondent entered into a written contract with John DeCarlucci to repair a leak in the roof of DeCarlucci's residence at 1717 North Oregon Circle, Tampa, Florida. The contract amount was $400.00, of which Respondent was paid $200.00 by DeCarlucci on November 16, 1988. The Respondent gave DeCarlucci a one-year warranty on his work. The balance owed on the contract was to be paid upon satisfactory completion of the job. Respondent commenced work on the DeCarlucci residence on November 16, 1988. On November 16, 1988 Respondent removed two rows of roofing tile from DeCarlucci's roof while attempting to repair the leak in the roof. The Respondent carried these roofing tiles away from DeCarlucci's residence on November 16, 1988 and has never returned these roofing tiles or provided DeCarlucci with any replacement roofing tiles. On November 23, 1988 the area of the roof that Respondent had attempted to repair leaked. As a result of several telephone calls to Respondent from DeCarlucci, the Respondent returned to the job site on November 26, 1988 and December 7, 1988, and whatever repairs the Respondent attempted on those dates failed in that the roof continues to leak. After December 7, 1988 the Respondent did not return to the job site. DeCarlucci attempted to reach Respondent through the remainder of December 1988 and January and February 1989 by telephone and a certified letter but to no avail. As a result of DeCarlucci filing a complaint with the City of Tampa Building Department on January 5, 1989, the job site was inspected by the construction inspector for the building department and the project cited for violation of the building code. Respondent was notified of the complaint and building code violation. The Respondent was given until February 14, 1989 to correct the leakage and to replace the missing roofing tiles. As a result of Respondent's failure to take any corrective action toward repairing the roof or replacing the missing roofing tiles, the DeCarlucci complaint was filed with the City of Tampa Unified Construction Trades Board for disciplinary action. The Respondent subsequently returned the $200.00 to DeCarlucci that he had received from DeCarlucci on the contract price on November 16, 1988. In its complaint against the Respondent the City of Tampa Unified Construction Trades Board alleged that Respondent's failure to properly repair the roof was a violation of Section 101.1-Covering, Standard for the Installation to Roof Coverings, 1985, edition, Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., and Section 25-101(5)(10) and (22) Grounds for Disciplinary Action, Penalties, City of Tampa, Building and Construction Regulations. Respondent was duly notified of the hearing to be held on April 4, 1989 on the allegations. At the hearing on April 4, 1989 the Respondent was found to have violated those sections set forth in Finding of Fact 13 and by unanimous decision the Board ordered Respondent to cease all construction activity and revoked the Respondent's permitting privilege. At no time material to this proceeding, has the Respondent made restitution to DeCarlucci for the missing roofing tiles or the cost of labor and materials for installing such tiles. While Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, provides for the assessment of costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of a case, there was no evidence presented by the Department as to the amount of those costs.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and disciplinary guidelines set forth in Rule 21E-17.001, Florida Administrative Code, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Christopher G. Coxon guilty of violation of Section 489.129(1)(d)(i) and (m), Florida Statutes, and for such violation revoke his license as a certified roofing contractor. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120-59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed findings of fact: 4-6(1); 7-8(2); 9-10(3); 11(4); 13-16(5); 17-18(3); 19(6); 20-21(7); 22-23(8); 24-26(9); 27 28(10); 29-30(11); 31(12); 32(16); 33(13); 34(14); and 35- 36(15). Proposed findings of fact 1-3 are covered in the Preliminary Statement. Proposed finding of fact 12 is rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. See proposed findings of fact 20 and 21 and finding of fact 7. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent The Respondent did not submit any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig M. Dickinson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Christopher Coxon 554 Carson Drive Tampa, FL 33615 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Gary Smith d/b/a Sirmons Roofing Company is a roofing contractor registered with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Smith does not hold any license issued by local construction licensing boards which does not license roofing contractors. Smith admitted that he had commenced construction projects without acquiring the appropriate building permits from the local building officials. Calvin Smith identified a contract, Exhibit 2, which he had entered into with Gary Smith d/b/a Sirmons Roofing regarding the repair of the roof of his house. This contract called for the replacement of bad wood, which was understood by the parties to refer to rotten wood planking and rafters. Calvin Smith stated that after construction commenced and the old roof had been removed, his house had suffered rain damage although Gary Smith had advised him that the roof had been dried in. Gary Smith explained that he had in fact laid the requisite felt paper on the roof but that a severe wind and rain storm and occurred immediately following which had destroyed the felt paper. Smith stated that a crew was on the job during the storm at all times trying to keep the felt nailed down and maintain the water-tight integrity of the roof. There were no delays following the removal of the roof in replacing the felt and diligently proceeding with the re-roofing. Several days after the storm the roof had been finished, the plywood ceiling of the family room of Calvin Smith's house was partially removed to permit the insulation to be replaced. At this time Calvin Smith discovered rotten wood which Smith felt should have been removed and replaced by Gary Smith pursuant to their contract. Gary Smith stated that he had found one rotten rafter, but that he had advised Calvin Smith of the fact that it was there and that Calvin Smith realized that he was not replacing it. Gary Smith stated that he had removed and replaced all the rotten wood in the roof and that the rotten wood discovered by Calvin Smith was on that portion of the family room roof which was under the eaves of the pre-existing roof of the house where it could only be seen upon removal of the family room ceiling. Gary Smith further testified that subsequent to finding the rotten wood, Calvin Smith had not permitted him to correct the job and that he had not personally seen the rotten wood, pictures of which Calvin Smith had identified. Calvin Smith identified photographs of the interior and exterior of the roof as repaired by Gary Smith. These photographs were received as Exhibits 3 and 8. Exhibits 7 and 8 were photographs of the exterior of the roof. Exhibit 8 is a photograph of a shingle which was not properly installed. Gary Smith admitted that the shingle was not properly installed but stated that it would have been corrected prior to finishing the job. Exhibit 7 is a photograph showing a course of shingles which does not have the proper overlap. Gary Smith explained that this short run of shingles was necessary to even up or balance the runs on both sides of a hip in the roof because the distance from the eave to the top or peak of the hip was not the same on both sides. Gary Smith also pointed out that in both photographs the shingles are laid so that the bottom of the upper course of shingles comes to or overlaps the lower course of shingles to the top of the tab, causing good contact between the shingles and the adhesive strips. Contrary to the assertion of Calvin Smith that the shingles had been laid in such a manner that the adhesive strips did not touch. Calvin Smith had identified Exhibit 6 as photograph of roof flashing on the family room roof which he asserted was improperly installed. Gary Smith stated that the flashing in Exhibit 6 was installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation and that the roof on the family room had the requisite number of layers of felt and tar as required by the building code. Gary Smith stated that he could not identify the purported location of the underside of the roof depicted in Exhibit 5 and identified by Calvin Smith as being in the middle of the family room. Gary Smith stated that he could not identify the purported location of the underside of roof depicted in Exhibit 5 and identified by Calvin Smith as being in the middle of the family room. Gary Smith stated that he had shown the rotten beam indicated in Exhibit 4 to Calvin Smith and that Calvin Smith had known that he was not replacing the bean because replacement would have required the removal of the family room ceiling as well as the sheeting on the roof over the beam. Gary Smith stated that the wood shown in Exhibit 3 was not rotten but water stained and that the beam was sufficiently solid to hold the weight of the roofing materials on top of it and to nail the new sheeting into. Tommy Thompson, construction inspection supervisor of the City of Jacksonville, inspected the roof of Calvin Smith's home. Thompson found that the shingles had not been lapped properly, that some shingles had been laid so that the ceiling strips would not adhere properly, that rotten rafters and wood had been left, that the correct number of nails had not been placed in the shingles, that metal flashing around the chimney had not been installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, and that one, twelve inch hold had been left in the roof sheeting. Thompson identified the Building Code of the City of Jacksonville and those portions of the code relating to installation of roofing materials. Thompson stated that the items mentioned in the paragraph above constituted violations of the code. Thompson also pointed out that it was a violation of the code to commence construction or repair of a roof without obtaining the requisite building permit. J. R. Bond, Executive Director of the Construction Trades Qualifying Board of the City of Jacksonville, stated that the board did not certify roofers. The ordinances of the City of Jacksonville empower the Construction Trades Qualifying Board to hear complaints against state registered but unlicensed contractors. However, the board lacks authority to take direct action against persons who are state registered but unlicensed. The board may only request that the city building official not issue the individual any further building permits. The building official must exercise his own independent authority and judgment in determining whether to suspend an individual's right to obtain building permits. The building official suspended Smith's privilege to obtain permits without a hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Smith's registration as a roofing contractor be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Telephone: 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Gary A. Smith Sirmons Roofing Company 3845 Edidin Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32211 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 78-1780 GARY A. SMITH d/b/a SIMMONS ROOFING CO., RC 0030047, 3845 Edidin Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32211, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Daniel A. Arguelles, held certified general contractor license number CG C004252 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. When the events herein occurred, he was qualified as an individual. He presently resides at 9455 Southwest 78th Street, Miami, Florida. Respondent's brother is J. Alejandro Arguelles. Alejandro holds an inactive contractor's license which has been delinquent since July, 1979. In June, 1984, Alejandro was contacted by an individual named Louis Taylor. Taylor told Alejandro that David Reynolds, who resided at 753 Northwest 116th Street, Miami, Florida, wished to add a room to his house. After meeting with Reynolds, Alejandro had plans for the addition prepared, provided an estimate for the job, and gave Reynolds a business card reflecting that he was a licensed general contractor. Reynolds and Alejandro then jointly executed a contract on July 26, 1985, wherein it was provided that A. Arguelles & Associates would construct the room addition for $19,000. The letterhead on which the contract was executed indicated that Alejandro was a general contractor. However, the entity "A. Arguelles & Associates" has never been qualified by any licensee to do construction work in the state. During all negotiations with Reynolds, Alejandro never mentioned that Daniel would be the contractor on the project although Alejandro did advise him that a general contractor would be required. All checks were made out to Alejandro, and Alejandro ordered all supplies and materials used on the project. In addition, Alejandro was at the job site on a regular basis. Prior to signing the contract on July 26, Daniel was approached by Alejandro and asked if he would be willing to act as contractor on the project. Daniel agreed, and thereafter pulled a job permit and used his license number on all pertinent documentation. Other than visiting the job site on a "couple" of occasions, he had no other contact with the project. He never met or had any contact with Reynolds. The actual amount of work done on the project by Alejandro and Daniel amounted to only $5,000.00 and consisted of constructing the foundation up to the tie beam. There is no evidence that this phase of the work was performed in a negligent or incompetent manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as set forth in the Conclusions of Law portion of this order, and that he be fined $500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of October, 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 1st day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32301 Nancy M. Snurkowski, Esquire 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32301 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32201 Mr. Daniel A. Arguelles 9455 S.W. 78th Street Miami, FL 33173
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, (1992 Supp.). Specifically, the Respondent has been charged in a four-count Administrative Complaint with violations of paragraphs (k), (m), (n) and (p) of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C007303, by the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was licensed to contract as an individual. On September 18, 1992, the Respondent, doing business as an individual, contracted with Charles and Elba Williams (hereinafter referred to as "Customers") to reroof their dwelling and shed at 15205 SW 78 Place, Miami, Florida, for the price of Fifteen Thousand, One Hundred Seventeen dollars ($15,117.00). On October 1, 1992, the aforementioned contract was amended to provide for the payment of half of the second draw before the second stage of the project was completed, and to provide for the payment of an additional Three Hundred and Fifty One dollars ($351.00) in materials. On November 5, 1992, the aforementioned contract was amended to provide the Customers with a credit on the contract of One Thousand, Six Hundred Thirty Six dollars and Sixty Four cents ($1,636.64) for their purchase of roof shingles. The revised contract price was Sixteen Thousand and Fifty Eight dollars ($16,058.00). The Customers paid the Respondent Twelve Thousand, Two Hundred Seventy Seven dollars and Ninety cents ($12,277.90) toward the contract. After receiving a credit on the balance due on the contract, the Customers owed Two Thousand, One Hundred Forty Two dollars and Thirty Two cents ($2,142.32) to the Respondent. On September 23, 1992, the Respondent obtained roofing permit number 92-110050 for the Customers' project from the Dade County Building and Zoning Department. The Respondent worked on the Customers' roof from September 23, 1992, through November 15, 1992, when the installation of the shingles was completed. On November 19, 1992, the Respondent failed a final inspection performed on the Customers' roof by the Dade County Building and Zoning Department because the Respondent failed to supply Dade County with product approval information and manufacturer installation specifications for the ridge vent he had installed. On November 24, 1992, the Respondent again failed a final inspection performed on the Customers' roof by the Dade County Building and Zoning Department for the same reason as on November 19, 1992. The Respondent never obtained a passing final inspection on the Customers' roof from the Dade County Building and Zoning Department. On November 24, 1992, the Customers sent the Respondent a Certified letter, Return Receipt requested, informing the Respondent that the roof could not pass final inspection until Dade County was provided with the product approval information and manufacturer installation specifications for the ridge vent he had installed. On December 4, 1992, the Respondent was issued a Notice of Violation from the Dade County Building and Zoning Department for failure to provide product approval information and manufacturer installation specifications for the ridge vent that had been installed on the Customers' roof. On December 4, 1992, the Respondent was issued a Notice of Violation from the Dade County Building and Zoning Department for failure to remove construction debris from the Customers' property. The Respondent did not comply with either Dade County Notice of Violation and did not supply the Dade County Building and Zoning Department with the product approval information and manufacturer installation specifications for the ridge vent that had been installed on the Customers' roof. The Customers were left with a roof that did not comply with Dade County Code. On March 26, 1993, the Customers paid a Forty Five dollar ($45.00) renewal fee to the Dade County Building and Zoning Department and had the roofing permit renewed and reissued in their own names. On March 4, 1993, the Customers paid another contractor, Mark Mitchell, Two Hundred dollars ($200.00) to remove the ridge vent and close the hole in the roof left by the removal of the ridge vent. On March 27, 1993, after the ridge vent had been removed, the Customers paid a Special Investigator, Ken Nash, Fifty dollars ($50.00) to perform a final inspection of the roof. On March 31, 1993, Ken Nash performed a final inspection of the roof and the roof passed inspection. The Customers paid Steve Wooten Thirty dollars ($30.00) to remove construction debris left on their property by the Respondent and to bring their property in compliance with the Notice of Violation issued on December 4, 1992.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the charges alleged in Counts I, II, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violation charged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing a penalty consisting of a fine in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty dollars ($250.00) for the violation charged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Snell Perera, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 780 Miami, Florida 33156 Mr. Al C. Hufeld Post Office Box 681064 Orlando, Florida 32868-1064 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has violated provisions of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Law, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken. The administrative complaint specifically charges Respondent with aiding an unlicensed person to evade provisions of the contracting licensing law, conspiring with an unlicensed person to allow his license to be used to evade provisions of the law, acting as a contractor under a name other than as appears on his registration, and failing to properly qualify a company under which he was doing business. Respondent denies the allegations.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been duly licensed by the Petitioner as a building contractor. On March 23, 1980, Nettie Wilkes entered into a contract with Rado Construction, Inc. The contract was for Rado to enclose a carport at Wilkes' residence and to do other work incident to that renovation. The contract provided that work would commence on April 10, 1980, and be completed approximately 21 to 30 days from the start. The total contract price was $5,700, and Mrs. Wilkes gave Rado a $1,500 down payment. Donald W. Gray negotiated the contract on behalf of Rado with Wilkes. Gray appears to be the principal party in Rado Construction. Gray contacted James Neilan and Jerry Polk about performing the work on the Wilkes project. Gray did not show Polk a copy of the contract with Wilkes, and he led Polk to believe that considerably less work would need to be performed than was required under the contract. Although Polk had a local occupational license as a carpenter, he was not a licensed contractor, and was not able to obtain a building permit for the work. Neilan and Gray were also unlicensed and unable to obtain a permit. Polk assumed that he would be working for Gray in a subcontracting capacity. Polk had performed considerable carpentry work on a subcontracting basis for the Respondent. Polk felt that the Respondent might help him obtain a permit. Polk approached the Respondent about the Wilkes' project. He told the Respondent the scope of the project as it bad been related to Polk by Gray. He did not advise the Respondent of the involvement of Gray or of Rado Construction. Polk initially asked the Respondent if the Respondent would be able to do the job and the Respondent indicated that he could not. Polk and the Respondent discussed the job on a casual basis and the discussion ended. Several days later, Polk returned to the Respondent's office and asked the Respondent if the Respondent could obtain the building permit and allow Polk to perform the work on a subcontractor basis. Respondent drew up some plans about the project. He agreed to Polk's proposal. The Respondent filed an application with the building inspection department of the City of Orlando for a building permit on April 15, 1980. A permit was issued by the city on that same date. Respondent had estimated the cost of the project, based upon his discussion with Polk, as being approximately $2,000. The Respondent delivered the permit to Polk and advised Polk that he would be inspecting the project periodically. Polk posted the permit at the Wilkes' property and worked together with James Neilan on the project. The work did not commence as scheduled in the contract between Rado Construction and Mrs. Wilkes, but it did commence sometime after April 15, 1980. As the project went on, Gray would from time to time visit the site and advise Polk and Neilan of additional work that would need to be performed that Polk had not known about earlier. Polk did not know that considerable masonry work would be required. He was not qualified to do masonry work, but he attempted to perform it. As the work went on, Polk became more and more dissatisfied, and ultimately concluded that what had been described to him as a one and one-half week job for two people was in reality a two-week job for ten men. Polk ultimately removed the permit from the premises and abandoned his work there. Approximately four days after he obtained the building permit for Polk, the Respondent visited the job site. He observed that no work had commenced and he contacted Polk. Polk erroneously advised the Respondent at that time that the project had been abandoned and that the permit would not be utilized. Respondent heard nothing more about the project for approximately four weeks. Mrs. Wilkes eventually became dissatisfied with the nature of the services that were being performed on her property. When Polk abandoned further work, she contacted the building permit officials and was advised that the Respondent, not Rado Construction, had obtained the permit. She contacted the Respondent and advised him of what had occurred. The Respondent promptly visited Mrs. Wilkes at her home. He was surprised and appalled to find that very poor work had been performed in a very sloppy manner. He discussed the matter at length with Mrs. Wilkes and learned for the first time of Gray's involvement in the project. He advised Mrs. Wilkes that he would not be able to do the job, but he gave her a check for $600 which she told him would be sufficient to complete the project. Respondent also provided laborers to perform cleanup work at the site, and hired a subcontractor to pour a driveway. Respondent expended approximately $1,000 to complete the project for Mrs. Wilkes. The Respondent located Gray, and in an unpleasant confrontation, obtained a promissory note from Gray for $1,000 to compensate the Respondent for his expenditures. The Respondent ultimately accompanied Mrs. Wilkes to a first meeting of creditors at Gray's bankruptcy proceedings. The Respondent has not previously or subsequently engaged in business in the manner that he did in this transaction. He is a reputable contractor and is contrite about the role that he played in the transaction.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times material to these proceedings Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered residential contractor, having been issued license number RR 0033727. Respondent's license was first issued in February, 1974. In April, 1983, Respondent submitted a change of status application and requested to qualify Regency Builders, a proprietorship. License number RR 0033727 was then issued to William B. Pitts, qualifying Regency Builders. Regency Builders, Inc., has never been qualified by a license of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes or any predecessor of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. There is nothing in the record to show that Regency Builders was ever properly incorporated in the State of Florida. However, the record reflects that Respondent did register Regency Builders under the fictitious name statutes Section 685.09, Florida Statutes and complied with the requirements of Section 489.117, Florida Statutes after being contacted by Petitioner's employee sometime in February, 1983. Respondent has been a contractor in Bay County, Florida for 10-12 years and has constructed 150-200 homes during this period of time without any disciplinary action against him, excluding the present proceeding. Respondent prepared a proposal for the construction of a home for Mr. and Mrs. Lee Munroe under the name of Regency Builders, Inc., and submitted the proposal to them. Although the Agreement which was prepared by Lee R. Munroe and signed by Respondent on April 11, 1982 and signed by Lee R. Munroe and Sara W. Munroe (Munroes) but undated, incorporates certain portions of the Proposal, the record reflects that the proposal, per se, was never accepted by the Munroes. The Agreement referenced in paragraph 5 was an agreement entered into by the Respondent and the Munroes for the construction of the Munroes' residence in Gulf Air Subdivision, Gulf County, Florida. The agreed upon contract price was $74,129.33 but, due to changes requested by the Munroes, the Respondent was paid approximately $95,000.00. The Munroes' residence was constructed by Respondent pursuant to the Agreement and was essentially completed in December, 1982. The Munroes moved into this "completed" residence in December, 1982. DeWayne Manuel, building inspector for Gulf County, Florida, during the construction of the Munroe's residence by Respondent, performed the framing inspection, the rough electrical inspection, the rough plumbing inspection, the mechanical inspection (the heating and air conditioning systems) and all other inspections required by the 1982 Southern Standard Building Code, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, Gulf County Florida (Code) with the exception of the final inspection. At the beginning of construction, but before the framing inspection, Lee Munroe contacted Manuel with a general concern about the construction. As a result of this meeting with Lee Munroe, Manuel requested Charles Gaskins (Gaskins) an architect with Gaskins Architect of Wewahitchka, Florida, to inspect the pilings, girders and floor joist. After this inspection, Gaskins made some recommendations in regard to the attachment of girders to the pilings which Respondent followed in making the corrections to the attachments. Gaskins Architect provided the Piling Layout 1st and 2nd Floor Framing (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8) at the request of the Munroes. Generally, Gaskins found no major problems with the pilings and girders other than the work was "sloppy". Both Manuel's and Gaskins' inspection revealed that Respondent had complied with the requirements of the Piling Lay Out and Manuel found no Code violations. After Gaskins inspected the pilings and girders, Respondent was allowed to continue construction by both Manuel and Munroe. The House Plans (Plans) for the construction of the Munroes' home were prepared by the Munroes' daughter who is an unlicensed architect. Although in several instances the Plans requirements were less stringent than Code requirement, the Plans were approved by the Gulf County Building Department. While the Plans were lacking in detail a competent licensed contractor should have known how to fill in the details. Once the Plans were approved, Manuel would allow a change in the Plans provided the change was as stringent as the Code and would allow the structure to be built in compliance with the Code. The change could be a downgrade or an upgrade provided the Plans, as changed, complied with the Code requirements. Respondent did not request any additional or more comprehensive plans from the Munroes or inform the Munroes in any manner that the plans were inadequate. The Plans called for 2 x 12 solid floor joists to be placed on 16 inch centers. The house as constructed by Respondent had engineered floor truss (I- Beams) placed on 24 inch centers. Those I-Beams carrying a significant load were not blocked and in some instance the I-Beams were not "end-blocked." The Code allows the use of wood I-Beams in place of solid wood floor joists provided the wood I-Beams are constructed in accordance with Code requirements. The record does not reflect that the I-Beams as used in this construction were built in accordance with the Code, and the testimony of both consulting engineering experts, that the placement of I-Beams in this structure required blocking along both sides and the end went unrebutted. There were holes and notches in the plywood web of the I-Beams. However, in reviewing the photographs in Petitioners Exhibits Nos. 11 and 14, and, in particular, photograph 1 of Exhibits 11 and photographs 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Exhibit 14, and the testimony surrounding those photographs, there is insufficient evidence to determine: (1) the size of the holes or notches (2 inch hole, 4 inch notch, etc.); (2) placement of hole or notch in relation to depth of I-Beam (upper 1/3, lower 1/4, etc.); or, (3) the depth of the I-Beams. Although there was no testimony concerning the size of the hole for the duct work and the depth of the I-Beam in photograph 7 of Exhibit No. 14, it is clear that the hole for the duct work is greater than 1/3 the depth of the I-Beam. The evidence is insufficient to show that Respondent did not use 5 - 2 x 12's in the main girder as required by Piling Layout. The evidence is clear that the 2 x 12's used in girders were not always butted at a support. The evidence is insufficient to show where the 2 x 12's were butted in the span or if the butting was staggered. No set-in braces or plywood sheathing was used in the bracing of exterior stud walls. However, diagonal metal strapping and thermoply was used and two layers of weatherboard were put on horizontally. The evidence was insufficient to show that water penetrated into the wood framework after the second siding was put on. A 32/16, 1/2 inch plywood was used for subflooring. There was no top plate on dining room wall which was a weight bearing wall. Ventilation in the attic was in accordance with plans but no cross ventilation was provided in the attic. The evidence is insufficient to show that hurricane clips were not applied to the center exterior wall in that neither engineer inspected the outside of the wall to determine if hurricane clips were on the outside. Manuel did not find a violation of Code in regard to the hurricane clips. In February, 1983, James Van Orman (Orman), a licensed engineer, was employed by the Munroes to do a structural analysis of the home constructed by Respondent. Orman's report (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10) contained certain calculations in regard to the structural integrity of the home. The calculations and Orman's testimony surrounding the calculations went unrebutted. Orman and Lee Munroe were associated through their work and Orman, also a general contractor, was hired to make the necessary corrections in the construction to make it structurally sound. On December 5, 1984, after reviewing the case file and exhibits, Harold Benjamin, Jr. (Benjamin), a licensed consulting engineer, conducted an inspection on the structure. While Benjamin's inspection was cursory and he made no calculations Benjamin noted the same Code violations as did Orman and concurred in Orman's conclusion that the structural integrity of the home had been compromised. Respondent was notified in March, 1983, of the problems with the structure but due to problems with the Munroes and with his subcontractor he was only able to replace the siding and do some cosmetic work between March, 1983 and October, 1983. In October, 1983, the Munroes contracted with Orman to correct what Orman had determined to be structural deficiencies and notified Respondent that they no longer wanted him on the job. On September 30, 1983, the final inspection was conducted by the Gulf County Building Department. The Respondent was not present at this inspection having failed to pick up a certified letter from Manuel advising him of the date for the final inspection. By letters dated February 7, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4), October 13, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5) and February 13, 1984 (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1), Manuel expressed his thinking about the Code violations and Orman's report. At the hearing Manuel testified that his thinking had not basically changed from what he had expressed in the letters. Neither the Respondent nor the Gulf County Building Department have had the residence structurally analyzed by a licensed engineer. Respondent deviated from the Plans without first obtaining approval of the Gulf County Building Department when he substituted I-Beams on 24 inch centers for 12 x 12 solid floor joists on 16 inch centers. The only evidence that this change was discussed with the Munroes was in regard to running heating and air conditioning duct work through the I-Beams because Mrs. Munroe did not want to drop the ceiling down to 7 feet to accommodate the duct work. While this change may not have affected the structural integrity of the house had the I-Beams been properly constructed and the strength of the subfloor material adjusted to account for the increased span, the evidence shows that the I-Beams were not properly constructed and that the subfloor material used was not of sufficient strength on account of the increased span. Therefore, this change affected the structural integrity of the house. It was apparent from the testimony that certain other changes in the Plans were made without prior approval of the Gulf County Building Department. However, it was also apparent from the evidence that these changes were at least verbally approved by the Munroes and there was no evidence that these changes affected the structural integrity of the house. Due to a grandfathering provision in the law, William Pitts has never taken an examination for licensure and has never been examined as to the provisions of the Code. Respondent in his testimony exhibited: (1) an awareness of the applicable provisions of the Code but not a complete understanding of them; and (2) an acceptable knowledge of he applicable construction practice.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine of $1 000.00 and suspend Respondent's residential contractor license for a period of one (1) year, staying the suspension and placing Respondent on probation for that period provided the Respondent: (1) pays the $1,000.00 fine within ninety (90) days; (2) obtains a current copy of the Southern Standard Building Code and agrees to keep it current; and (3) proves to the Board that he has read and is familiar with the applicable Sections of the Code that relate to his license. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr. Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles S. Isler, III, Esquire Post Office Box 430 Panama City, Florida 32402 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville Florida 32202 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent, Ronald Mustari, violated Section 489.129(1)(r), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice contracting.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Ronald Mustari, was a certified residential contractor, having been issued license number CR C036684 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board in 1986. On or about April 29, 1991, Respondent was licensed as the qualifying agent for Whitehall Development Corporation (Whitehall Development), and served in this capacity at all times material to this proceeding. As the qualifying agent, Respondent was responsible for all of the contracting activities of Whitehall Development. Furthermore, at all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was president of Whitehall Development. On or about October 9, 1989, Whitehall Development entered into a subcontract agreement with Anchor Air Conditioning, Inc. (Anchor Air Conditioning), whereby Anchor Air Conditioning would provide services for Whitehall Development. Subsequently, a dispute arose between Anchor Air Conditioning and Whitehall Development regarding the subcontract agreement. As a result thereof, in 1993, Anchor Air Conditioning filed a civil complaint against Whitehall Development in the Manatee County Circuit Court, Case No. CA-93-4210. The complaint alleged that Whitehall Development owed money to Anchor Air Conditioning pursuant to the terms of the subcontract agreement. Whitehall Development contested liability and responded by filing counterclaims against Anchor Air Conditioning. After contesting the issue of liability for more than two years and incurring more than $20,000 in attorney fees, Respondent concluded that continuing to litigate this matter was not a viable option given Whitehall Development's insolvency at that time. Furthermore, Respondent determined that it would be futile for Whitehall Development to pursue its counterclaims in the civil matter because Anchor Air Conditioning was insolvent. On May 9, 1996, the Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for Manatee County, Florida, entered a Final Judgment in Case Number CA-93-4210, in favor of Anchor Air Conditioning against Whitehall Development in the amount of $18,118. The Final Judgment was the result of a negotiated, stipulated Settlement Agreement entered into between Whitehall Development and Anchor Air Conditioning. Currently, Whitehall Development has no funds or assets and is no longer doing business. In 1992, and prior to Anchor Air Conditioning's filing the complaint against Whitehall Development, the Internal Revenue Service placed a lien on all property and rights to property owed to Anchor Air Conditioning. The lien was to cover outstanding assessments owed by Anchor Air Conditioning to the Department of Treasury-Internal Revenue Service for the tax periods ending December 31, 1988; December 31, 1989; and June 30, 1990. In September or October 1992, Whitehall Development received a copy of Notice of Levy dated September 25, 1992. According to the Notice of Levy, Whitehall Development was required to pay any money it owed to Anchor Air Conditioning to the Internal Revenue Service. As of June 13, 1997, this Notice of Levy remained in effect. As of the date of the final hearing in this matter, Whitehall Development has not satisfied the Final Judgment in Case No. CA-93-4210. Whitehall Development has failed to pay the funds due and owing to Anchor Air Conditioning pursuant to the Final Judgment to the Internal Revenue Service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(r), Florida Statutes; imposing a fine of $1,000; placing his license to practice contracting on probation, under such terms and conditions as prescribed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board; and assessing the costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul F. Kirsch, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert E. Messick, Esquire Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A. 2033 Main Street, Suite 600 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Paul L. Crowder first registered with petitioner as a general contractor on April 4, 1980. He held license No. RG 0035515 at least until July 1, 1987, when it "was placed on a delinquent status for non-renewal." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. Respondent's license "is considered invalid for the 1991-93 licensing period." Id. On February 20, 1990, the late Dorothy Regoski accepted respondent's written proposal to construct a seawall 276 feet long to a height of four feet above mean high water on Santa Rosa Sound around the edge of her yard. She lived at 232 Brooks Street in Fort Walton Beach with her mother (to whom the house belonged). By signing the proposal, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, Miss Regoski obligated herself to pay $10,227.00 for the seawall, which everybody agreed was needed to replace an existing seawall that had begun to fail. She gave respondent a check for $6,600 on February 20, 1990, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, and agreed to pay the rest when the project was completed. Respondent Crowder testified he was too busy to begin work in February or March but he found time on April 17, 1990, to apply to the City of Fort Walton Beach for a building permit. Sometime thereafter he spent part of a day removing sand just landward of the existing seawall and severing the "tie backs" with which the top of the existing seawall had been anchored to "dead men" further landward. It was necessary to break the "tie backs" in order to install the replacement seawall against the landward side of the existing seawall. Fortunately, removal of the sand diminished or eliminated the pressure or moment tending to tip the top of the existing seawall seaward. But, perhaps mainly because of salt water "cut worms" at work on the existing wall, only some sixty percent of the existing wall remained vertical by the time Mr. Lancaster inspected it in June of 1990. On two or three occasions after the initial excavation, although never for more than a day at a time, respondent or his employees returned to the Regoski home, put in piles, and joined many of them with horizontal 3" x 6" stringers or "whalers." In mid-June, after they had failed to appear for over a month, Ms. Regoski engaged Wayne Lancaster to finish the job. Mother and daughter were understandably alarmed at the rate of erosion boat wakes, the southeast wind and the jetting action of tides created. Mr. Lancaster supplied additional whalers and repositioned others, then installed two courses of 1" x 8" planks separated by filter cloth, and tied back the new seawall to its own deadman. He charged $6200, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, and he and his men finished the job in a week and a half. The evidence put respondent's work at approximately two-fifths of the whole. Mr. Pelham, a professional engineer who has designed and supervised the erection of at least 100 seawalls (and who remembers the day respondent was born), put the fraction at 41%. Respondent claimed about 40%. The successor contractor testified it might have been as little as 30%. Once respondent excavated, exposing the old seawall and tie backs, acceptable construction practice required staying with the job until it was finished. Respondent's handling of this project was closely analogous to a roofer's taking a roof off and leaving the roof uncovered. Respondent conceded that the delay was not standard practice and that normally such a project should not be interrupted. He also testified that he knew the existing seawall was damaged and "fixing to go." The project should have been completed in a continuous operation, both to protect the upland against erosion and to avoid siltation of waters of the state.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, and in keeping with Rule 21E-17.002, Florida Administrative Code, RECOMMENDED: That the CILB suspend respondent's license for thirty (30) days, and thereafter until he has paid Ms. Regoski's estate two thousand five hundred seventy-three dollars ($2,573). DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1992. Copies furnished to: William S. Cummins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Paul L. Crowder 521 Shrewbury Road Mary Esther, FL 32569 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a registered general contractor by the State of Florida, Construction Industry Licensing Board, having been issued license number RG 0014645. Respondent's address is 2533 Green Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32308. On or about October 30, 1985, Willie McFarland (McFarland) contracted with Virgil Fleming (Fleming) to perform certain improvements to Fleming's home located at 9008 Broken Lance, Tallahassee, Florida. The contract price was $24,600.00. There was no contract between Fleming and Respondent. Fleming paid McFarland $16,500.00 of the contract price. Most of this money was paid in advance of work being performed. MoFarland was not, at any time material to this proceeding, a licensed contractor in the State of Florida and both Fleming and Respondent knew that he was not a licensed contractor. McFarland was not authorized to pull a permit to complete the work and Fleming, upon finding this out, started to pull the permit as a homeowner but changed his mind. Respondent agreed to pull, and did pull, the permit for this job, after checking on McFarland and with the understanding that he would have to be involved with McFarland on the job. Without the permit, McFarland could not have continued with the job. Fleming did not pay any money to Respondent for pulling the permit or for anything else and there was no evidence that McFarland paid any money to Respondent for pulling the permit or anything else. McFarland partially completed the work contracted for with Fleming. The Respondent went to the job site on several occasions but was unable to make contact with McFarland. Respondent did make contact with McFarland on one (1) occasion after he had pulled the permit and obtained some promises from McFarland concerning the job but McFarland did not "live up" to those promises. There was credible testimony from Respondent that McFarland was not an employee of Respondent's business but that one of the conditions for pulling the permit required McFarland to be an employee of Respondent only on this job. Respondent had no knowledge of the financial arrangements between McFarland and Fleming until after the permit was pulled and McFarland had "skipped." The parties have been unable to locate McFarland.
