Findings Of Fact Aubrey E. Clark's license as a building contractor was first renewed in 1975 (Exhibit 2). He was so licensed at all times here relevant and has been a licensed building contractor for approximately nine years. In 1979 Clark was building homes for Development Corporation of Orlando (DCO) who was in the land-development business. He ran into difficulties in getting paid by DCO and agreed to take over the home building on his own with the company selling the lot and Clark building the home. At this time he was doing business as A & L Builders. A & L Builders was not incorporated and Clark, who held a building contractor's license, was simply doing business as A & L Builders. Subsequently, and during the time material to these charges, A & L Builders became incorporated. Clark remained the licensed building contractor who pulled the permits for construction but failed to license the corporation. At the time Clark was doing business as A & L Builders there was no legal entity but himself, and A & L Builders did not require a license. Clark failed to recognize or understand the different legal entities created when A & L Builders, Inc., came into existence and required licensing. Respondent had completed some 50 to 60 homes in the subdivision and had approximately 20 under construction, including those of the two complaining witnesses, when he suffered a stroke on March 21, 1981, and was placed in intensive care for 21 days followed by another eight days in the hospital before being able to leave the hospital. In addition to the stroke, he had a dilated left ventricle to his heart. While Clark was in the hospital the foreman he had employed to supervise the construction quit. Clark's brother, a trim carpenter, came to the job site to keep the projects going but did not have sufficient experience to properly schedule the subcontractors and get them on the job when needed. When Clark was released from the hospital he had someone drive him to the job site where he attempted to get things in proper order. After a few hours on the site he collapsed and had to be taken home and put to bed. The following day he again tried to go to the job site but his physical condition would not allow him to even supervise at the site. His doctor told him that if he did not stay away from the job site for at least six months to one year he could have another stroke and perhaps suffer permanent paralysis. A & L Builders, Inc., contracted to build a home for the Haineses for $33,450, of which $31,750 was to be paid in progress payments as the construction of the home progressed (Exhibit 3). At the time of Clark's stroke A & L Builders had drawn some $24,163 (Exhibit 5) under this draw schedule. After Clark was unable to complete the residence, Haines contracted with Lifestyle Pool & Construction to complete the residence in accordance with specifications for $7,624 (Exhibit 6) This was almost exactly the amount remaining in the construction loan for this house. A & L Builders contracted with Kelly to build a home for $44,475 (Exhibit 11) , of which $42,250 was to be paid to A & L Builders in progress payments (Exhibit 11). At the time Respondent became unable to complete this contract he had drawn slightly more than $30,000 (Exhibit 16). This contract further provided that the seller would pay discount points on mortgage loan up to three points. After Clark became ill Kelly ultimately had to pay these points. When A & L Builders abandoned the site, the bank arranged with Kelly to enter into a contract with another builder to complete the project. Kelly entered into a contract with Winchester (Exhibit 17) on July 3, 1981, and the home was finished with a total cost to Kelly about the same as it would have been had the home been completed by A & L Builders. Clark testified that he could have completed the Kelly house in accordance with the contract for an amount significantly less than Winchester was paid. Liens were placed on both Haines' and Kelly's houses by subcontractors and material men. However, none of these lienors brought action against either Kelly or Haines and all considered the amounts represented by these liens to be owed to them by Clark. At the time of the hearing all of these liens had lapsed and were no longer valid liens against the property of Haines and Kelly. Clark considers these debts represented by these liens to be debts he owes and which he expects to repay some day. He has not filed bankruptcy proceedings although during the time he was unable to work up until the time of this hearing his liabilities far exceeded his assets. Respondent did not keep separate bank accounts for each house he had under construction in the project. Draws received from the Kelly contract, for example, were placed in the A & L Builders, Inc., bank account and checks were written on this account to pay for labor and materials used on all of the houses under construction in this project. No evidence was presented that such funds were used on any project outside the subdivision of homes Respondent had contracted to build.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting in violation of Section 489.127, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of contractors in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.42 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. On June 7, 2005, Harry Lee Wilson signed a proposal on behalf of Wilson Construction and Roofing to perform repairs on a home owned by Tony Wright at 2126 Evergreen Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. The proposal consisted of a two-page list of repairs to be performed, including installation of doors, plumbing, kitchen cabinets and sheetrock; repair of several holes, walls, windows and floors; painting and installation of a wall. The proposed cost for the job was $7,595.00, with $3,200.00 to be paid as a down payment, $2,200.00 to be paid halfway through, and the balance to be paid when the job was completed. Mr. Wilson represented to Mr. Wright that he was a licensed contractor and had been for 20 years. He had business cards and t-shirts that advertised "Wilson Construction and Roofing." His license, however, was an occupational license issued by the City of Jacksonville. At no time material to these proceedings was Mr. Wilson registered with or certified by the State of Florida. Likewise, Wilson Construction and Roofing did not possess a certificate of authority to practice as a contractor qualified business. No evidence was presented to establish that Mr. Wilson held any sort of competency license issued by the local jurisdiction. Mr. Wright accepted the proposal and, in all, paid $5,000.00 to Mr. Wilson for his services. On September 21, 2005, Mr. Wilson wrote to Mr. Wright representing that he had completed the "first proposal," i.e., the first page of the work under the contract. In his letter, he claimed that Mr. Wright had defaulted on the job because of work done by another contractor and that additional funds would be needed to complete the work. Mr. Wright was not pleased with the quality of work performed on the job and stopped paying Mr. Wilson. Some of the work had to be redone by another contractor. For example, the plumbing was not installed correctly; the countertop was not level; a weight-bearing wall was braced incorrectly; and drywall was applied over the light switches. Mr. Wright was under the impression that the work by Mr. Wilson was not inspected because the funds were not coming from a bank. Inspection was only performed when the job was finished by the second contractor. Mr. Wilson admitted that he has been doing construction work for 20 years and did not believe a state license was necessary. He believed that his occupational license was all he needed to perform construction work. Mr. Wilson claimed that he did not perform any plumbing work for Mr. Wright or the amount he did was minimal. However, Mr. Wilson's proposal to Mr. Wright clearly includes plumbing work among those items to be performed. Whether or not he actually did plumbing work on the job, Mr. Wilson negotiated a contract to perform such work. There was no evidence presented that Mr. Wilson was offering to perform or performing any contracting services under the supervision of any licensed contractor. The Department incurred investigative costs, excluding any costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $401.83.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds that Respondent violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes; That an administrative fine of $5,000.00 be imposed; and That costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $401.83 be assessed. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.state Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 9th day of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Harry Wilson Wilson Construction and Roofing 12450 Biscayne Boulevard Apartment 415 Jacksonville, Florida 32218 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Did Respondent engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor or advertise himself or a business organization as available to engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor without being duly registered or certified or without having a certificate of authority as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the Agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to regulate the practice of unlicensed contracting under Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent has never been licensed to engage in contracting within the State of Florida. Specifically, at no time material to this proceeding was Respondent licensed to engage in contracting within the State of Florida. At no time material to this proceeding did the business known as Handyman-No Job Too Small ever apply for or obtain a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida. Some time around November 15, 2000, Respondent and David Arendt entered into an oral agreement wherein Respondent was to do remodeling work on Arendt's home located at 728 Hampstead Avenue, in Orlando, Florida, for the contract price of $7,000.00. This remodeling work included, but was not limited to, repairs to the front porch, remodeling the master bedroom, and removing and replacing the shed roof with a rolled roof. Arendt paid Respondent a total of $3,500.00 for the work completed by Respondent up until December 18, 2000. Subsequent to December 18, 2000, Arendt dismissed Respondent due to disagreement concerning the work to be completed. Respondent subsequently filed a contractor's Claim of Lien in the amount of $3,500.00 against Arendt's home in Orlando, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a contractor as that term is defined in Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes. The total investigative and prosecution costs to the Department, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, is $496.45.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and a review of Chapter 61G4-17, Disciplinary Guidelines, Florida Administrative Code, without any consideration for mitigating or aggravating circumstances, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent, David C. Marquis guilty of violating Subsection 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00 and costs in the amount of $496.45. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 David Marquis 616 Aldama Court Ocoee, Florida 34761 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this complaint, the Respondent, Joseph Marcelin, was a certified residential contractor, license number CR C028352. Respondent’s place of business and residence are in Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining licensed contractors. On May 14, 1988, the Construction Industry Licensing Board entered a final order approving a settlement stipulation regarding Case no. 74860 against this Respondent. This final order directed Respondent to adhere to and abide by all of the terms and conditions of the stipulation. The stipulation required the Respondent to not violate the provisions in Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes, in the future; required Respondent to honor a settlement in a civil matter; required Respondent to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00; suspended Respondent’s license for thirty days; and required Respondent to affirmatively demonstrate compliance with the stipulation in order to have his license reinstated. A second final order entered by the Board on May 14, 1988, approved a settlement stipulation regarding Case no. 77499. This final order also directed Respondent to comply with the stipulation applicable to that case. In Case no. 77499, the stipulation required Respondent to abide by a civil settlement; imposed a fine in the amount of $500.00; suspended Respondent’s license for thirty days; and placed the burden on Respondent to demonstrate he had met the terms of the stipulation. As to both cases referenced above, Respondent admitted the allegations of the administrative complaints which, in pertinent part, claimed Respondent had assisted an unlicensed person or entity to perform contracting services thereby aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. On April 2, 1993, Respondent executed a certification change of status form which was submitted to the Department. Such form was completed for the purpose of qualifying as an individual for licensure and sought to reinstate a delinquent license or change from inactive to active. In the course of completing the change of status form Respondent was required to answer a series of questions by checking either the “yes” or “no” column. In response to the question as to whether Respondent had “been charged with or convicted of acting as a contractor without a license, or if licensed as a contractor in this state or any other state, had a disciplinary action (including probation, fine or reprimand) against such license by a state, county or municipality?,” he answered “no.” Such answer was false. Further such answer was made under with the following affirmation: I affirm that these statements are true and correct and I recognize that providing false information may result in a FINE, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION of my contractor’s license. [Emphasis in original.] Thereafter, the Department notified the Respondent that his license would not be issued as he had failed to demonstrate satisfaction of a civil judgment and had not submitted an explanation of the disciplinary action from 1988. Respondent eventually resolved issues of licensure with the Department and, on September 15, 1993, was authorized to practice contracting. Prior to his license being reinstated, Respondent performed the following: on April 7, 1993, Respondent obtained a building permit for construction work at the home of Eduardo Bovea. This permit, no. 93181501, indicated Respondent as the contractor of record for the project. On the permit application Respondent represented himself as the licensed building contractor for the Bovea project to the Metropolitan Dade County building and zoning department. Respondent did not have a contract with Bovea for the construction work to be performed on the Bovea home. In fact, the contract was between Bovea and Lou Greene Construction. The Boveas paid monies to Rodney Salnave, who claimed to be a representative for Lou Greene Construction. Rodney Salnave was not Respondent’s employee, and was not licensed as a contractor. The Respondent did not talk to the Boveas regarding the contract, the scope of the work to be done, or the contract price for the work. All discussions regarding the work at their home (and payments for same) were between Rodney Salnave and the Boveas. The permit for the Bovea project represented the amount of the work to be $2,000.00. In fact, the contract price for the work was $4,500.00. Respondent misrepresented the value of the work for the Bovea project. As of September 26, 1993, Respondent admitted he was involved with seventeen contracting jobs. Just eleven days after having his license reinstated, and while being employed in a full-time (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) job with Dade County, Respondent had contracting responsibility for seventeen jobs. In reality, Respondent had made a deal with an unlicensed person, Denis Joseph, to pull permits for him. The jobs were for persons who, in some instances, Respondent had never met. For example, Mr. Joseph pulled a permit for work to be performed on a home owned by Ed Davis. The contract for the work was between Mr. Davis and a Mr. Sutton, an unlicensed contractor, but with the approval of Respondent, Mr. Joseph obtained a permit for the Davis job. A second job was for Bertha Joseph. In this instance, Mr. Joseph completed the permit application which Respondent signed thereby allowing Mr. Joseph to obtain the permit for the project. By signing the permit, Respondent represented himself to be the contractor for the job. In truth, the homeowner had contracted with Denis Joseph for the work to be done, but the project was completed by Emanuel Gideon, an unlicensed contractor. Respondent admitted receiving payments from Denis Joseph. Respondent admitted he was not actively involved with the Bertha Joseph project. In September, 1993, Eric Wardle, an investigator with the Dade County building and zoning department, interviewed Respondent regarding claims that he was obtaining permits for unlicensed contractors. According to Mr. Wardle, Respondent admitted he pulled permits for unlicensed contractors after Hurricane Andrew because they were trying to make a living. At hearing Respondent disputed the accuracy of Mr. Wardle’s investigation but admitted he would have told him “anything just for him to get away from me.” Respondent’s explanation at hearing was not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order revoking Respondent’s contractor license and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $8,500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce M. Pasternack, Esquire Raymond L. Robinson, P.A. 1501 Venera Avenue, Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Joseph Marcelin 16561 Southwest 144th Court Miami, Florida 33177 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1997. Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation/CILB 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Northwood Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints involving violations of the requirements of Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes. Sections 489.131(7)(e) and 455.225, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 489.129(1), the Construction Industry Licensing Board ("Board") is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for any of the violations set out in that section. At all times material to this case, Mr. Vega was a certified general contractor operating under a license issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board, numbered CG C046448. Mr. Vega has been a licensed general contractor in Florida since 1989, and since 1994, he has been the licensed qualifying agent for Group Construction South Florida, Inc. The residence of David M. Hudson, located at 19801 Southwest 84th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida, was severely damaged in August, 1992, by Hurricane Andrew. In a letter dated October 13, 1992, Mr. Hudson, who holds a doctorate in biology and is the laboratory manager for the University of Miami Chemistry Department, proposed to Mr. Vega that he prepare plans for reconstructing the Hudson residence. On December 23, 1992, Mr. Hudson and Mr. Vega executed a contract for construction work to be performed on the Hudson residence. The parties contemplated that Mr. Vega would complete the work in accordance with the drawings and original blueprints prepared by Jose A. Sanchez, a structural engineer, at Mr. Vega's direction and based on preliminary plans approved by Mr. Hudson. Specifically, Mr. Hudson understood that the major elements of construction included in the December 23 contract were elevation of the house from one story to two stories, construction of a new living area on the second floor, and construction of a basement on the first floor to serve as a "bare bones storage area." The contract price specified in the December 23 contract was $146,338.33, with ten percent due upon acceptance of the proposal, ten percent due at completion of each of eight items of construction specified in the contract, and ten percent due upon completion of the project. The eight items of construction specified in the contract were "demolition work, rising work, tie beams, roof, doors & windows, plaster & tile, pool & fence, finish work and paint." On February 1, 1993, Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Information Department issued Permit Number 93119957 to Mr. Vega for the Hudson project. The building permit was based on the original plans for the project submitted by Mr. Vega on January 19, 1993, together with some items that were added to the plans at the county's request. Mr. Vega began work on the project on February 1, 1993, the day the permit was issued. Mr. Vega hired Ruben Armas to act as foreman for the project, and his duties included hiring and supervising day laborers and procuring materials needed for construction. At the time, Mr. Armas was not licensed, registered, or certified by either Dade County or the State of Florida. Mr. Vega had an arrangement with Mr. Armas whereby he paid Mr. Armas periodic advances on a lump sum payment that Mr. Armas was to receive when the Hudson project was complete. Mr. Vega did not deduct FICA or withholding tax from the payments made to Mr. Armas under this arrangement. Mr. Vega dealt directly with Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson regarding the project, although they would occasionally leave messages for him with Mr. Armas. Mr. Vega directly supervised Mr. Armas and gave him instructions on the work that was to be performed and the way it was to be done. Mr. Vega was routinely at the job site at least two or three times a day to inspect the work that had been done. Mr. Vega was present at the site during the entire time that cement was poured for footings or other structural elements. Mr. Vega arranged for various subcontractors to work on the project, including electricians, plumbers, air conditioning workers, roofers, carpenters, and drywall hangers. On April 14, 1993, a Department investigator conducted an inspection of the Hudson project during a "hurricane task force sweep." When she and the other members of the task force arrived on the job site, she observed Mr. Armas and two other men "inside working," but she did not observe them working or see the type of work they were doing. Mr. Armas walked out to meet the inspector and gave her a card that contained his name and phone numbers and the words "General construction & roof repair." Mr. Armas told the Department investigator that, when she arrived, he was "working on the footing for the elevation of the house." On April 21, 1993, Mr. Vega signed a Cease and Desist Agreement in which he acknowledged that the Department was investigating allegations that he had "engaged in the practice of aiding and abetting unlicensed contractor Ruben Armas." By signing the agreement, Mr. Vega agreed to cease "engaging in this activity," but he did not admit that the Department's allegations were true. The Department investigator was at the Hudson job site on April 14, 1993, for thirty minutes to an hour, during which time Mr. Vega did not appear at the site. This was the only time she was at the job site while work was being done. As the work progressed on the project, everything appeared to be going well, and Mr. Vega felt that he enjoyed a very good working relationship with Mr. and Mrs. Hudson. Mr. Hudson paid Mr. Vega a total of $116,400.00, or eighty percent, of the original contract price of $146,338.33, in ten percent increments as provided in the contract. By check dated December 23, 1992, Mr. Hudson paid the down payment of $14,633.38. By check dated February 5, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $14,600.00 upon completion of the demolition work. By check dated March 5, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $14,633.00 upon completion of raising the structure to two stories. By check dated March 24, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $14,633.00 upon completion of the tie beams. By check dated April 19, 1997, Mr. Hudson paid $14,633.00 upon completion of the roof. By check dated May 13, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $14,633.00 which should have been paid upon completion of the doors and windows but which he paid even though the installation of the doors and windows was not complete. By check dated June 23,1993, Mr. Hudson paid $12,000.00 of the $14,633.00 draw because, in his opinion, the project was not being completed on schedule. Finally, by check dated July 2, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $17,000.00 to bring the payments up to the amount consistent with the contract schedule for completion of the pool and fence. In a letter to Mr. Vega dated June 7, 1993, Mr. Hudson stated that he wanted to make "a major change" in the plans. Specifically, Mr. Hudson wanted to eliminate the swimming pool, which he estimated would save $20,000.00 of the $146,633.00 contract price, and use the money saved "to completely finish the downstairs to be a nice guest area," to "install the better quality carpet we want, complete wooden fence, air conditioning in 1st floor, plumbing ~ electric in 1st floor, [and] indoor wooden shutters for all windows." Mr. Hudson went on to state that he wanted certain enumerated appliances, which would cost $4,108.00, and new furniture, which he estimated would cost $6,000.00, for a total of $10,108.00. According to Mr. Hudson's proposal, Mr. Vega should be able to "finish off the 1st floor the way we want it, install the nice carpet and tile, and do all the other jobs previously listed (fence, plumbing, etc., for 1st floor) for about $10,000.00." The basement area which Mr. Hudson wanted to finish as a "nice" living area consisted of approximately 2,000 square feet and had originally been designed as a storage area, with concrete floor and walls. Mr. Vega and Mr. Hudson discussed the proposal and the costs of the changes, but they did not reach an agreement on the cost of the additional work. 3/ Mr. Hudson asked Mr. Vega to leave the job site and cease work on the project on or about July 3, 1993, and Mr. Vega did not perform any work on the Hudson residence after this time. Mr. Hudson terminated Mr. Vega from the project solely because of the dispute with Mr. Vega over the cost of the changes he had requested in his June 7 letter. Mr. Hudson did not complain to Mr. Vega about the quality of the work that had been completed, and, although he thought that the project was getting behind schedule, Mr. Hudson issued a check dated July 2, 1993, which brought the total payments to eighty percent of the original contract price. When Mr. Vega stopped work on the project, the structure contained deviations from the original plans. 4/ Some of the deviations were items shown in the original blueprints which had not been incorporated into the structure; some were items that were not shown in the original blueprints but were incorporated into the structure at the request of, or with the approval of, Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson; some were deviations in the size of openings to accommodate doors and in the location and size of windows; most were minor deviations in the placement of electrical switches and receptacles or other similar deviations. The construction was, however, generally consistent with the original plans. 5/ There were three items that were significant deviations from the original plans. The most serious deviation concerned the changes made in the dimensions of the structural slab that formed the floor of the second floor balcony off the family room, kitchen, and dining room and the roof of the first floor terrace. The original plans included a second floor balcony with a width of six feet. The Hudsons asked Mr. Vega to increase the width of the balcony, and Mr. Vega called Mr. Sanchez, the structural engineer who had prepared the original plans, and asked if the width of the slab could be increased. Mr. Sanchez approved an extension from the original six feet to eight feet, eight inches, and he advised Mr. Vega of the additional reinforcement that would be needed to accommodate the increased width. On the basis of Mr. Sanchez's approval, Mr. Vega incorporated the additional reinforcement specified by Mr. Sanchez and poured the slab to the requested width of eight feet, eight inches. Even though Mr. Vega consulted a structural engineer, he did not submit revised blueprints to the building department and obtain approval for the structural change before doing the alteration. He was aware that the building code required approval before such a change could be incorporated into a structure and that his actions violated the code. 6/ The second significant deviation from the original plans was Mr. Vega's failure to construct the fireplace shown in the original plans. According to the plans, a fireplace was to be constructed in the living room, on the second floor. Although the roof was completed and the drywall installed, no accommodation had been made for the fireplace in either the wall or the roof. Mr. Vega intended to construct the fireplace and would have done so had he not been told to cease work on the project. The third significant deviation from the original plans concerns the windows installed in the structure. No window permits or product approvals were contained in the permit file for the Hudson project. In addition, some of the windows were not the size specified in the original plans, some were too deep, and some were placed lower than the thirty inch sill height specified in the original plans. Many of the items identified as "deviations" were actually items not shown on the original plans but incorporated into the structure at the request of, or with the approval of, Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson. Neither the requests for the additional items nor the costs of the items were reduced to writing by Mr. Hudson or Mr. Vega. At the time Mr. Hudson directed him to cease work on the project, Mr. Vega had contracts with subcontractors to provide the labor and materials specified in the original contract. He was prepared to complete the project in accordance with the original plans and for the original contract amount, with adjustments for the extras that had already been incorporated into the project at the request of, or with the approval of, Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson. He was also prepared to correct all deficiencies and code violations in the structure. After he was terminated from the project, Mr. Vega continued to negotiate with Mr. Hudson's attorney to arrive at an agreement for completion of the project that would be satisfactory to Mr. Hudson. In a proposal submitted to Mr. Hudson's attorney in the fall of 1993, Mr. Vega offered to complete the project in seven weeks in accordance with the original plans, as modified to incorporate the changes and upgrades Mr. Hudson had requested in the June 7 letter and the changes and upgrades that had already been incorporated into the project at the request of, or with the approval of, Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson. The total price for completion proposed by Mr. Vega was $56,750.00, which included the cost of the upgrades and extras and the $29,572.00 balance owing under the original contract. Mr. Hudson did not accept this proposal. Instead, he eventually hired a contractor named Robert Krieff, who did some work on the project. In February, 1994, Mr. Hudson took over the building permit himself and hired various subcontractors to work on the project. According to Mr. Hudson, in addition to the $116,400.00 he paid Mr. Vega, he has paid approximately $50,000.00 for work done after he terminated Mr. Vega, and he anticipates spending another $35,000.00 before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Mr. Hudson paid off a lien on his property for work done pursuant to his contract with Mr. Vega. A Claim of Lien in the amount of $4,712.00 was filed by Luis A. Roman on October 5, 1993, for drywall hung and finished at the Hudson residence under an arrangement with Mr. Vega. Summary of the evidence. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega willfully violated the building code with respect to the alteration of the width of the second floor balcony. Mr. Vega admitted that he knew he was violating the building code when he extended the width of the second floor balcony beyond the width specified in the original blueprints before submitting revised engineering plans to the county and receiving approval to make the alteration. This violation is one of procedure only, however, and there was no competent evidence presented to establish that Mr. Vega failed to include adequate reinforcement to compensate for the additional width prior to pouring the slab or that there were structural problems with the slab. 7/ The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega violated the building code because the work completed by Mr. Vega on the Hudson project contained deviations from the original approved plans. 8/ On the other hand, the evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that this violation is a minor one. The Department's experts testified that the construction done on the Hudson residence by Mr. Vega was generally consistent with the approved plans and that it was commonplace for contractors in Dade County to deviate from the approved plans and later submit revised plans for approval. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega did not file product approvals or obtain window permits prior to windows being installed in the Hudson project. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient, however, to establish that these omissions on Mr. Vega's part constituted a violation of section 204.2 of the South Florida Building Code, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Although there was some testimony that the building code requires that product approvals be filed and window permits obtained before windows are installed, the applicable code and section were not identified by the Department's witnesses or otherwise made a part of the record. Thus, there is no evidence of the precise obligations imposed on Mr. Vega by the code that was applicable at the time of the Hudson project. As a result, it is not possible to determine whether Mr. Vega fulfilled his obligations under the code. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega assisted Mr. Armas in engaging in the unregistered or uncertified practice of contracting. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Armas performed any work on the Hudson project that could be performed only by a licensed contractor. 9/ Notwithstanding the opinions stated by the Department's experts, the evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega is guilty of incompetence or misconduct in the practice of contracting as a result of the work done on the Hudson project. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Hudson suffered financial loss in the amount of $4,712.00, which is the amount Mr. Hudson paid to clear the lien placed on his property by Luis A. Roman. Although this loss is attributable to Mr. Vega's failure to pay Mr. Roman for hanging and finishing drywall in the Hudson residence, the evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Hudson suffered financial loss as a result of the violation with which Mr. Vega was charged and of which he was proven guilty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order dismissing Counts I and III of its Administrative Complaint, finding that Gonzalo Vega is guilty of violating section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1993), and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Richard M. Woodley has two inactive contracting licenses numbered CB CA 17970 and CB CO 17970, and was so licensed in 1986. The Respondent's license CB CA 17970 qualified "Woodley Builders, Inc." with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At the time of the hearing, the Respondent was no longer in the construction contracting business as a licensed contractor. With respect to case number 87-2809, on December 15, 1985, the Respondent, on behalf of Woodley Builders, Inc., entered into a contract with Catherine M. Richardson and Jonathan P. Richardson to build a residence in or near Orlando, Florida. The contract price was $90,000, with $20,000 attributable to the land. The contract specified that payments would be made to Woodley Builders, Inc. "in accordance with the disbursement schedule set forth by the construction lender." P. Ex. 1, paragraph 7. Woodley Builders, Inc. also agreed in the contract to furnish to the Richardsons lien waivers as required by the construction lender for disbursements. The construction lender disbursed the following amounts on the indicated dates: $10,200 March 17, 1986 $10,200 March 19, 1986 $17,000 March 27, 1986 $17,000 April 24, 1986 To induce these disbursements, a total of $54,400, the Respondent signed lien waivers stating that all bills for labor and materials used had been paid in full. P. Ex. 5. At the time of signing, the Respondent told the construction lender that he had paid all bills due to that time, but had not paid bills not yet presented. T. 89. Thus, the lien waivers were intended to be a certification of the partial completion and payment for the work billed to the date of the waiver, and a promise to pay other bills for work already completed as such bills were presented. Six claims of liens were filed by subcontractors. The Richardsons hired a lawyer, and the lawyer was able to defend against two of the liens for failure to properly comply with procedures for mechanic's liens. Four liens for the following amounts and for work beginning on the dates indicated ultimately had to be satisfied by the Richardsons: $ 2,851.45 March 19, 1986 $13,462.34 March 7, 1986 $ 1,944.57 April 8, 1986 $ 785.01 April 9, 1986 These liens were for work commenced before the last lien waiver was signed on April 24, 1986. Thus, the Respondent failed to comply with the oral representations he made at the time of signing the lien waivers. The Richardsons were forced to execute a second mortgage in excess of $17,000 to pay off the unpaid liens. The Richardsons terminated the contract with Woodley Builders, Inc. when subcontractors quit working for lack of payment by Woodley Builders, Inc. Some money was obtained from family loans. It cost the Richardsons about $30,000 to have the house finished, which has added about $325 per month to their mortgage obligations. The Respondent and Woodley Builders, Inc. have not paid anything on these liens. Woodley Builders, Inc. filed bankruptcy. The Richardsons sued the Respondent as trustee for Woodley Builders, Inc. and obtained a default judgment for $149,839, which was a judgment of $32,380 in compensatory damages, trebled, plus costs, interest, and attorney's fees. With respect to case number 87-2810, on June 11, 1986, Woodley Builders, Inc. entered into a contract with Tom Jamieson to construct an addition to his residence in Orlando, Florida. The price of the work was $18,500. The contract specified that the price was a cash price, and that draws were to be made according to a schedule stated in the contract. Mr. Jamieson paid to Woodley Builders, Inc. about $11,700 of the contract price. At some time before completion of the addition, the owner, Mr. Jamieson, evidently became dissatisfied with the Respondent's work. Mr. Jamieson was given the Respondent's copy of the contract and refused to return it to the Respondent. Mr. Jamieson then owed the Respondent a draw of $3500, but refused to give it to him, and refused to have it put in escrow for the payment of subcontractors. The date that this occurred is not in evidence. T. 35-36, 39. Since Mr. Jamieson had taken back the contract, the Respondent thought that he (the Respondent) no longer had any legal proof of the contract (either scope of work or amount due), and thus had no contract to complete the work. He also did not receive the draw that was due. The Respondent thus ceased work on the addition for fear that he would not be paid without a copy of his contract. T. 36-37. The Respondent offered to complete the work. T. 51. The drywall contractor, Rick's Drywall, Inc., filed a lien for $465 for work done from August 12, 1986 and August 20, 1986. The Respondent would have paid this lien had Mr. Jamieson not terminated the contract and refused to give the Respondent a draw still due of $3500. T. 49-50. There may be a claim for unpaid electrical work in July, 1986, see P. Ex. 15, but it is impossible to tell if this occurred before or after Mr. Jamieson terminated the contract, or whether the Respondent had received draw money that should have paid this claim. The only evidence is that the Respondent had an agreement with the electrical subcontractor to pay that subcontractor at the time of the final draw, a draw never received as discussed above. T. 53. P. Ex. 11 is insufficient evidence that there were unpaid claims for roof trusses. Moreover, it cannot be determined whether the Respondent received a draw before contract termination which should have been used to pay for roof trusses. The Respondent had been a contractor for eight years before he began to have financial difficulties resulting in the problems with the Richardson's residence. There is no evidence of any prior discipline.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter its final order finding in case number 87-2809 that the Respondent, Richard M. Woodley, violated sections 489.129(1)(m), 489.129(1)(j), and 489.119, Fla. Stat. (1986), misconduct in contracting by diversion of funds, and failure to supervise as a qualifying agent, and in case number 87-2810, dismissing the administrative complaint for failure of proof by clear and convincing evidence. It is further recommended for the violation set forth above that the license of the Respondent be suspended for one year. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1988. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 22nd day of July, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard M. Woodley 2521 Tuscaloosa Trail Maitland, Florida 32751 David Bryant, Esquire 1107 East Jackson, Suite 104 Tampa, Florida 33602 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Nonroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Did Respondent violate Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida vested with statutory authority to regulate the practice of contracting under Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed certified residential contractor in the State of Florida. Respondent's license number, as certified by Julie Odom, Department's Alternate Records Custodian, is CRC 20166. However, the Administrative Complaint alleges the license number to be CR C020166. Respondent's licensure status is "Delinquent, Active." On May 18, 1989, the Department entered a Final Order in DOAH Case No. 88-3308 wherein Respondent was found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h),(j),(k), and (m), Florida Statutes. On September 27, 2000, the City of Cape Coral, Florida, Contractor's Regulatory Board (Board) entered into a Settlement Agreement (Agreement) with Respondent, in regard to a complaint, Case No. 00-01, wherein Respondent was charged with violating the following Sections of the City of Cape Coral Code of Ordinances: 6-10.1:, To make misleading, deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of his contracting profession; 6-10.8: Diversion of funds or property received for prosecution or completion of a specified construction project or operation when as a result of the diversion, the contractor is or will be unable to fulfill the terms of his obligation or contract; 6-10.10: Failing in any material respect to comply with the provisions of the Code; 6-10.11: Abandoning of a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. A project is to be considered abandoned after 90 days if the contractor terminates the project without notification to the prospective owner and the City and without just cause; and 6-10.13: Being found guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The Agreement provided that Respondent was pleading No Contest to the charges that he violated the aforementioned sections of the City of Cape Coral's Code of Ordinances and that Respondent's plea did not act as an admission of guilt as to the above mentioned charges. The Agreement provided for Respondent's permit pulling privileges to be revoked for a period of 90 days starting August 23, 2000. By an Order dated December 29, 2000, the Board, after hearing and discussing the charges made against Respondent, voted to accept and approve the Agreement. By this Agreement, Respondent's contracting license was disciplined by the City of Cape Coral. The total investigative and prosecution costs to the Department, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, is $967.09.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and a review of Chapter 61G4-17, Disciplinary Guidelines, Florida Administrative Code, with consideration for the repeat violation of Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent, Robert Mensching guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and for such violation: (a) impose an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00; (b) assess costs in the amount of $967.09; and (c) revoke Respondent's Certified Residential Contractor's License. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly V. Clark, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robert Mensching 1719 Northeast 23rd Terrace Cape Coral, Florida 33909 Robert Crabill, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulations Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a general contractor, holding license CGC1251933 issued by the Petitioner. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was the qualifying contractor for "Signature Built Construction, Inc.," located at 1349 Admiral Woodson Lane, Clearwater, Florida, 33755. In May 2008, a complaint was filed against David Helms and "Signature Built by David Helms, Inc.," related to alleged problems between Mr. Helms and purchasers of a dwelling (the Wolbert residence). The Respondent is not a qualifying contractor for Signature Built by David Helms, Inc. Neither Mr. Helms nor Signature Built by David Helms, Inc., is a licensed contractor. Signature Built Construction, Inc., and Signature Built by David Helms, Inc., are two separate Florida corporations. There is no credible evidence that the two corporations have entered into any formal joint venture agreement or have become legally qualified to enter into joint construction contracts or to obtain joint building permits. The specific allegations of the complaint between the purchasers of the Wolbert residence and Mr. Helms are immaterial to this proceeding. The first page of the "Building and Purchase Agreement" for construction of the Wolbert residence identifies Signature Built by David Helms, Inc., as the "Builder" or "Seller," but further states as follows: Signature Built Construction, Inc., license numbers CBC1251933/QB32131 is the Contractor/Builder of record for Signature Built by David Helms, Inc. and is joined under this agreement. The Respondent's signature does not appear on the Building and Purchase Agreement. There is no credible evidence that the Respondent was legally bound by the Building and Purchase Agreement. The Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding alleges that the Respondent improperly obtained the permit for the Wolbert residence construction project on behalf of Signature Built by David Helms, Inc. The evidence establishes that the Respondent obtained the building permit for construction of the Wolbert residence pursuant to the Building and Purchase Agreement between the purchasers and Signature Built by David Helms, Inc. The Administrative Complaint alleges that the Respondent failed to maintain workers' compensation insurance for the construction of the Wolbert residence and, therefore, committed "fraud or deceit or gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting." The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent did not maintain workers' compensation coverage for construction of the Wolbert residence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order determining that the Respondent has committed the violation of statute and code provisions as set forth herein and providing for a fine of $1,000.00 and assessing legal costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 19th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jason Ester, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney’s Office 315 Court Street, Sixth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756-5165 Warren J. Knaust, Esquire Knaust & Associates, P.A. 2167 Fifth Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Rodney S. Fischer, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 12600 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773
