Findings Of Fact Prior to July, 1972, Athan was a registered architect in the State of Florida after passing the Board's examination. In 1972 Athan failed to pay his renewal fee for the year 1973. Nathan tendered his fee for 1972 in June, 1973; however, his application and check were returned to him by the Board because Athan did not include a $10.00 penalty fee. No further action was taken by the Board until June, 1976, when after an inquiry by Athan as to his status, the Board sent Athan a notice of revocation dated May 27, 1976. In response to this notice, Athan requested additional information from the Board. The Board's letters of June 9, 1976, and August 16, 1976, advised Athan that, if he desired to be reinstated without examination, he would have to appear before the Board. Athan appeared before the Board on two occasions and the Board denied his request for reinstatement. The basis for this denial was never stated formerly to Athan and is not developed in the file introduced into evidence. Athan testified and the file reflects that he was never noticed of a hearing to be held on the issue of the revocation of his license and that no formal action of revocation was ever taken by the Board prior to May 27, 1976. The parties stipulated that Athan meets all the qualifications for licensure required by the statutes prior to taking the examination for licensure. The basis for the Board's action in denying Athan's request for reinstatement are contained in the representations and arguments of Counsel for the Board as set forth in the introductory portion of this order and are hereby incorporated into the findings of fact. Based upon the stipulation concerning Athan's qualifications, the only basis for denial of Athan's application for reinstatement are those stated above. Between 1972 and 1974 Athan designed structures for his own development company. During this period, he developed, designed and supervised the construction of a forty-unit apartment house and six office buildings. Considering that Athan was totally responsible for design and construction of these projects, this work compares favorably with his work output in the preceding four years during which he designed thirteen shopping centers, 3,000 apartment units, a four-story office building, two hospitals, and twelve to fifteen private homes. Following his eighteen month vacation, Athan worked for a licensed architectural firm in the State of Florida for a short while during which he was involved in all phases of architecture. This firm found that Athan's work was totally satisfactory in all respects.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of Demetrios James Athan be reinstated by the Florida State Board of Architecture. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Rinaman, Jr., Esquire Southeast First Bank Building Post Office Box 447 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Mr. Demetrios James Athan Post Office Box 174 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Jose Milton, failed to qualify Joseph Enterprises, an entity through which it is alleged that the Respondent engaged in the business of contracting, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(j) and Sections 489.119(2) and (3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its Administrative Complaint dated September 17, 1981, Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent as licensee and against his licenses as a certified general contractor and a registered general contractor based on the fact that "he was acting in the capacity of a contractor under a name other than as it was issued" in violation of Section 489.129(1)(g) , Florida Statutes (1979), and also in violation of Section 489.129(1)(j) Florida Statutes (1979) to wit: Sections 489.119(2) and (3) in that he failed to properly qualify a company under which he was doing business. 1/ Documentary evidence introduced revealed that Respondent was first licensed as a registered general contractor in June of 1968 and was issued license No. RG0000195. During January of 1973, the license was changed to reflect International General Contractors, Inc. In June of 1977 a Change of Status application was submitted requesting the subject license be changed to reflect an individual status as well as a reinstatement. That license had been delinquent since July 1, 1975. The application was approved, processed and issued on an active status to Jose Milton, Individual. The subject license is delinquent as of July 1, 1981, and a Change of Status application requesting reinstatement had not been submitted to Petitioner as of September 23, 1982. Additionally, the records reveal that Jose Milton took and passed a state certification examination for general contractors in May of 1972. License No. CGC003859 was issued to Jose Milton, International General Contractors, Inc., in August of 1972. As of September 23, 1982, the subject license is active and issued for the 1981-83 licensing period; however, the certificate of issuance on file for that license expired effective October 1, 1981. Petitioner therefore considers the subject license invalid until Jose Milton has submitted evidence of general liability coverages as required (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1). On September 7, 1979, Joseph Enterprises and Joseph Santa Maria entered into a Deposit Receipt and Sales Contract for the sale and purchase of a townhouse located at 19635 West Lake Drive, Miami, Florida. A certificate of occupancy was issued for the townhouse on approximately May 6, 1980. Respondent is not a signator to the subject Deposit Receipt and Sales Contract (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2). According to Mr. Santa Maria, there was no construction on the subject site at the time he entered into the Deposit Receipt and Sales Contract with Joseph Enterprises on September 7, 1979. Respondent, on the other hand, takes the position that construction had in fact commenced on September 7, 1979, and that the permits for the townhouse for which Mr. Santa Maria agreed to purchase had been pulled by him on behalf of another entity that he owned, International General Contractors, Inc. In the subdivision in which Mr. Santa Maria purchased his townhouse, Respondent is the developer of a townhouse project referred to as Royal Singapore Lake which consists of some 174 townhouses. The permits for the construction of these townhouses were pulled by Jose Milton in the name of a construction company that he owned, International General Contractors, Inc., during April of 1978. As stated, Respondent has qualified International General Contractors. The plans, as approved by the Dade County building department, and the necessary building permits were posted at the construction site by International General Contractors (TR 47-48). Joseph Enterprises is a fictitious name for Jose Milton. The Respondent owns the property on which the townhouses are built and that property is registered under the fictitious name, Joseph Enterprises. That fictitious name is properly registered in Dade County and with the Secretary of State (TR 48-49). Respondent takes the position that Joseph Enterprises is not an entity through which he is doing contracting but rather it is merely "like qualifying [himself] because I am Joseph Enterprises." Finally, Respondent reiterated that the "Santa Maria building" was nearly completed at the time that the sales contract, in evidence herein, was signed. In support thereof, Respondent proffered a flood insurance policy dated May 29, 1979, covering the subject property. A premium payment of $152 per annum was paid for the flood policy. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1). As stated, Respondent owns the construction company known as International General Contractors. International General Contractors is a qualified contractor, having been so qualified by Respondent, Jose Milton. According to Respondent, everybody is aware that he is responsible for the property generally known as Royal Singapore Lake. (TR 54). Concluding, Respondent takes the position that he was not even required to register Joseph Enterprises inasmuch as he is a licensed, registered architect in the State of Florida since 1953 (file No. AR0003327) and is therefore exempt from the registration requirements contained in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Respondent, Jose Milton, be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie Daniel, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert D. Korner, Esquire Korner & O'Brien 4790 Tamiami Trail (SW 8th Street) Coral Gables, Florida 33134 James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 5223 DOAH CASE NO. 82-1635 JOSE MILTON, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact On March 9, 1973 Peterson, an architect registered in Florida, submitted a proposal "for preparation of design and construction drawings" for remodeling an existing residence to a new law office (Exhibit P-5). This was assigned on March 13, 1978 by attorney Anderson, who also remitted the required $200 retainer fee. Pertinent to this case, the contract provided for services to be rendered as: "Contract documents for permits and construction to include architectural plans (site floor plan, elevations and sections) and engineered structural and electrical drawings; "fee was $1,000 payable $200 on signing and $800 upon completed contract documents for permits." Any other services were at $20 per hour, including design changes after approval of preliminary drawings. The plans Peterson prepared showed the removal of a load bearing wall, without comment or provision for structural additions required by the demolition of the wall. Although the plans were not sealed, Anderson paid the $800 balance and bids were requested. The one bid (Exhibit R-4) was considerably more than budgeted, therefore the project was delayed. After a time, Anderson got interested in the project again but Peterson was unavailable so another architect was used and the project was completed. Thereafter, Anderson's requested reimbursement from Peterson was refused and this complaint was filed. Two registered Florida architects testified as experts for the Petitioner. Peterson's plans did not meet minimum architectural standards, particularly as to omission of substitute structural members for the removal of the load bearing wall. Although, structural changes could have been added by addendum, plans must be complete prior to obtaining permits and bids, and the acceptance of the full amount of the fee. In mitigation, Respondent agreed that he misinterpreted Anderson's understanding and desires but thought the standard procedure was followed; he indicated that this is the first time he has been in this type of situation. More particularly, Peterson intended to exercise his right to prepare an addendum that would have provided an appropriate structural substitution for the load bearing wall, after the ceiling was opened up; he considered the original plans for the wall as schematic only. He assumed the project was not going forward and the bidding process was merely to get prices.
