Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Marlene E. Lutman, is a vice president of American Custom Builders, Inc. and was a vice president in 1977. Respondent holds licenses Number CR C012570 end Number CR CA12570 issued by the Petitioner Board. On September 11, 1978, Respondent submitted a certification change of status application to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. This application, completed by Respondent under oath on September 7, 1978, was filed for the purpose of changing the contractor's licenses held by Respondent to add the name of American Custom Builders, Inc. to said licenses. On July 6, 1979, an Administrative Complaint was filed against Respondent, doing business as American Custom Builders, Inc., seeking to permanently revoke her licenses and her right to practice under said licenses and to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. Respondent Lutman requested an administrative hearing, which was scheduled for September 6, 1979, continued on Motion of Respondent, and held November 29, 1979. On the application completed by Respondent, Question 12(b) asked: Are there now any unpaid past-due bills or claims for labor, materials, or services, as a result of the construction operations of any person named in (i) below or any organization in which such person was a member of the personnel? Question 12(c) of the application asked: Are there now any liens, suits, or judgments of record or pending as a result of the construction operations of any person named in "(i) below" or any organization in which any such person was a member of the personnel? Respondent, as a vice president of American Custom Builders, Inc., was designated in "(i) below." She answered "no" on the application to both of the above stated questions. Respondent completed the application while she was in Florida. Prior to completing the application, Respondent spoke by telephone with John D. Cannell, an attorney in Ohio, in reference to Questions 12(b) and 12(c), supra. Cannell told Respondent that there were no unpaid bills outstanding. He said that there had been liens filed involving American Custom Builders, Inc., but that these liens had been cancelled. Cannell based his statements to Respondent upon oral assurances from personnel at the bank involved in financing the construction project associated with the liens that all liens had been paid. It was later learned that on September 7, 1978, the date Cannell told Respondent the liens had been cancelled, the liens had not been cancelled and were of record in the Recorder's Office of Geauga County, Ohio. Liens had been filed on January 6, 1978, January 23, 1978, and January 3l, 1978, by various subcontractors involved in the construction of a house owned by Winford and Sally Ferrentina. The liens were based on claims against American Custom Builders, Inc. as general contractor and the Ferrentinas as owners for unpaid labor and materials and were not satisfied of record until September 20, 1978, on which date the January 6, 1978 lien was satisfied, and March 22, 1979, on which date the other two (2) liens were satisfied. The Hearing Officer finds that Respondent Lutman did not intend to make a material false statement but negligently relied on oral representations that there were no past-due bills and no liens of record pending as a result of her construction operations. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact, memoranda of law and proposed recommended orders, and the Petitioner Board submitted a reply memorandum. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this order they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent, Marlene Lutman, be reprimanded. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffery B. Morris, Esquire 2400 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jeffrey R. Garvin, Esquire 2532 East First Street Post Office Box 2040 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 79-1546 Marlene Lutman, CR C012570, CR CA 12570 Respondent, /
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statues, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Richard M. Golfman, was, at all times material hereto, licensed by the Department as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C032860, and authorized to engage in the practice of general contracting as an individual.1 The Feinstein project (DOAH Case No. 00-0599) On or about October 30, 1998, Respondent entered into a written contract with Norman and Sheila Feinstein to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to enclose and remodel the screened patio, and to build a rock garden, at their home located at 5468 Northwest 20th Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $5,000. At the time, the Feinsteins paid Respondent $1,500 as the initial payment (deposit) under the terms of the contract. The contract Respondent presented and the Feinsteins executed on October 30, 1998, did not include Respondent's license number, nor did it contain a statement concerning consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Following execution of the contract, Respondent made repeated promises to construct the rock garden; however, it was not until November 10, 1998, that Respondent appeared on-site and constructed the rock garden, albeit not to the Feinsteins' satisfaction. Subsequently, Respondent had some high-hat electrical fixture cans and a bundle of furring strips delivered to the home for the patio project but, thereafter, despite repeated requests, refused to perform any work on the project or refund any money to the Feinsteins. The value of the labor and materials Respondent invested in the rock garden, as well as the cost of the building materials (the high-hat fixtures and furring strips) delivered to the job-site, was $250, a sum considerably less than the $1,500 the Feinsteins had entrusted to Respondent under the terms of their agreement. The Burres/Berger project (DOAH Case No. 00-0600) On or about November 23, 1998, Respondent submitted a written proposal to Tanya Burres to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to replace the existing roof on her home located at 7270 Montrico Drive, Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $22,125. The proposal was a one-page preprinted form. In the upper left there appeared, printed immediately following Respondent's handwritten name, the following: THE GOLFMAN GROUP, INC. P.O. Box 811926 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 The proposal did not include Respondent's license number, nor did it contain a statement concerning consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. At the time the proposal was submitted, Tanya Burres was under contract to sell the home to Drs. Glenn Berger and Michelle Fiorillo, husband and wife (the Bergers), and Ms. Burres had agreed to split with the Bergers the cost of a new roof for the home. At the time, Ms. Burres had suggested the Respondent as a contractor to perform the work (because he had previously done satisfactory work for Ms. Burres); however, it was understood that the employment of any contractor was subject to the Bergers' approval. That the Bergers' agreement was required before any such employment would be accepted was clearly conveyed to Respondent. On November 23, 1998, Tanya Burres signed the proposal and gave Respondent a check payable to his order in the sum of $1,106.25, representing her half of the ten percent deposit called for by the proposal. The Bergers, however, declined to accept the proposal, and refused Respondent's request for the balance of the deposit. Rather, the Bergers, having received adverse information from the Department regarding Respondent's record, preferred to employ a different contractor, and Ms. Burres accorded the Bergers a monetary credit at closing (on the purchase of the home) for one-half the cost to re-roof the home. When the Bergers informed Ms. Burres (shortly after she signed the proposal on November 23, 1998) that they would not agree to use Respondent, Ms. Burres attempted to stop payment on her check; however, the check had already been cashed. Thereafter, Ms. Burres attempted on numerous occasions to contact Respondent by telephone and by his pager, but Respondent failed to return any of her calls or messages. To date, Respondent has failed to account for or return Ms. Burres' deposit of $1,106.25. The costs of investigation and prosecution As of February 25, 2000, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totaled $234.85 for DOAH Case No. 00-0599 (the Feinstein project) and $195.65 for DOAH Case No. 00-0600 (the Burres/Berger project.) Previous disciplinary action At hearing, the Department offered proof that, on two prior occasions, Respondent had been subjected to disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the Board). (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) The first occasion is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, dated August 4, 1987, which found Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint (which were not revealed at hearing beyond what may be inferred from the terms of the Final Order), and resolved that Respondent suffer the following penalty: Respondent's licensure is hereby suspended for ten (10) years. Provided, Respondent may obtain termination of said suspension at anytime, without further action by the Board, upon providing the Board's Executive Director with a certified bank check in an amount sufficient to cover and pay a fine of five hundred dollars ($500), and the bad check alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and all service charges in connection therewith, and all other fees accruing as of the date Respondent seeks said termination of supervision. The second occasion Respondent was subjected to disciplinary action is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, dated July 18, 1997, which approved a stipulated settlement of certain complaints then pending before the Board. That Final Order approved the dismissal of a number of counts contained in five Administrative Complaints then pending before the Board and, as to the remaining counts, agreed (without Respondent admitting or denying the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaints) to the following penalty: 3. FINE AND COSTS: Respondent shall pay a fine of Nine Hundred dollars ($900.00) and costs of Eight Hundred fifty One dollars ($851) to the Board within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Final Order. Said payment shall be in the form of a cashier's or certified check and shall be made payable to the "Construction Industry Licensing Board." To assure payment of the fine and costs, it is further ordered that all of Respondent's licensure to practice contracting shall be suspended with the imposition of the suspension being stayed for thirty (30) days. If the ordered fine and costs are paid in compliance with the terms set forth above, the suspension imposed shall not take effect. However, should payment not be timely made, the stay shall be lifted and Respondent's license shall be immediately suspended. Upon payment of the fine and costs in full, the suspension imposed shall be lifted. Respondent apparently satisfied the fines and costs imposed by the foregoing orders. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and which, as a penalty for the violations found, imposes an administrative fine in the total sum of $13,500.00, revokes Respondent's licensure, orders that Respondent pay restitution to Norman and Sheila Feinstein in the sum of $1,250.00 and to Tanya Burres in the sum of $1,106.25, and assesses costs of investigation and prosecution (through February 25, 2000) in the total sum of $430.50 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of June, 2000.
The Issue The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, Petitioner, seeks to revoke the registered contractor's license of Stephen J. Borovina, Respondent, based on allegations, which will be set forth in detail hereafter, that he engaged in conduct violative of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The issue presented is whether or not the Respondent aided or abetted and/or knowingly combined or conspired with Mr. Howard North, an uncertified or unregistered contractor, to evade the provisions of Chapter 468.112(2)(b), and (c), Florida Statutes, by allowing North to use his certificate of registration without having any active participation in the operations, management, or control of North's operations. Based on the testimony adduced during the hearing and the exhibits received into evidence, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified general contractor who holds license no. CGC007016, which is current and active. On or about July 25, 1976, Mr. and Mrs. Julius Csobor entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. Howard North for the construction of a home in Martin County, Florida, for a total price of $35,990. Neither Mr. or Mrs. North are certified or registered contractors in the State of Florida. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #2). Respondent applied for and was issued a permit by the Martin County Building Department to construct a residence for the Csobors at the same address stipulated in the contract between the Csobors and the Norths, i.e., Northwest 16th Street, Palm Lake Park, Florida. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #1). Howard North, a licensed masonry contractor for approximately nine (9) years was contacted by the Csobors through a sales representative from a local real estate firm. It appears from the evidence that North had previously constructed a "spec" house which the local realtor had sold and thus put the Csobors in contact with Mr. North when they were shown the "spec" house built by North. Evidence reveals that North contacted Borovina who agreed to pull the permit "if he could get some work from the job and could supervise the project". Having reached an agreement on this point, North purchased the lot to build the home for the Csobors and he orally contracted with the Respondent to, among other things, pull the permit, supervise construction, layout the home and do trim and carpentry work. North paid Respondent approximately $200 to layout the home for the Csobors. By the time that North had poured the slab and erected the subfloor, the Csobors became dissatisfied with his (North's) work and demanded that he leave the project. According to North, Respondent checked the progress of construction periodically. Prior to this hearing, the Csobors had never dealt with Respondent in any manner whatsoever. According to Csobor, North held himself out as a reputable building contractor. A contractor is defined in relevant part as any person who, for compensation, undertakes to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or by others, construct, repair, etc. . . . real estate for others. . . Chapter 468.102(1), Florida Statutes. Applying this definition to the facts herein, it appears that the Respondent, at least in a literal sense, satisfied the requirements and obligations of a contractor, as defined in Chapter 468.102, Florida Statutes. Thus, he contracted with North to oversee and/or supervise the project for the Csobors which he fulfilled, according to the testimony of North. Said testimony was not refuted and thus I find that no effort was made by Respondent to evade any provision of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Stephen J. Borovina 2347 Southeast Monroe Street Stuart, Florida 33494 J. Hoskinson, Jr. Chief Investigator Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-1442 STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, CG C007016, 2347 S. E. Monroe Street, Stuart, Florida 33494, Respondent. / This cause came before the FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD at its regular meeting on February 10, 1978. Respondent was sent the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations and was given at least 10 days to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. Respondent was notified of the meeting so that respondent or counsel might appear before the Board. Respondent did not appear The FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD on February 10, 1978, after reviewing a complete transcript of the Administrative Hearing, by motion duly made and seconded voted to revoke the certified general contractor's license of STEPHEN J. BOROVINA. It is therefore, ORDERED that the certification of respondent STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, Number CG C007016, be and is hereby revoked. Respondent is hereby notified that he has 30 days after the date of this final order to appeal pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Appellate Rules. DATED this 13th day of February, 1978. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD BY: JOHN HENRY JONES, President ================================================================= SECOND AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, CG C007016, Respondent/Appellant, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-1442 FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner/Appellee. / This cause came before the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board at its regular meeting on August 3, 1979. The respondent was sent the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations and was given at least 10 days to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. Respondent was notified of the meeting so that respondent or counsel might appear before the Board. Respondent did appear. The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, on August 3, 1979, after reviewing a complete transcript of the Administrative Hearing, by motion duly made and seconded, voted to revoke the certified general contractor's license of Stephen J. Borovina, No. CG C007016. On February 13, 1978, the certification of respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, No. CG C007016, was revoked by order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On April 25, 1979, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, in Case Number: 78-527, reversed the final order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. That Court remanded the above captioned case to the Board to further consider the matter and enter such order as it may be advised in conformity with Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), Florida Statutes (1977). In accordance with the decision of the Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, the Board has reconsidered the above captioned matter and finds as follows: The Board rejects the recommended order as the agency's final order. The Board adopts the first paragraph of the hearing officer's finding of fact. The Board, however, rejects the findings of fact found in the second paragraph of the hearing officer's findings. The second paragraph states as follows: A contractor is defined in relevent(sic) part as any person who, for compensation, undertakes to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or by others, construct, repair, etc. real estate for others...Chapter 468.102(1), Florida Statutes. Applying this definition to the facts herein, it appears that the Respondent, at least in a literal sense, satisfied the requirements and obligations of a contractor, as defined in Chapter 468.102, Florida Statutes. Thus, he contracted with North to oversee and/or supervise the project for the Csobors which he fulfilled, according to the testimony of North. Said testimony was not refuted and thus I find that no effort was made by Respondent to evade any provision of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. The findings of fact found in the above-quoted paragraph were not based upon competent substantial evidence. The competent substantial evidence supports a finding that the respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, did not supervise the project and that Borovina evaded the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The following evidence supports the Board's position: There was no written agreement entered into between Howard North and the respondent which indicated that the respondent was to supervise the construction of the Csobors' house (T- 14); It was conceded at the hearing that the only subcontractors or draftmen who worked on the Csobors' house were contracted solely by Howard North and they had no contract whatsoever with the respondent (T-19, 25); The respondent never advised or informed Mr. and Mrs. Csobor that he was the contractor on the job. (T-51); At all times during the act of construction of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Csobor were under the impression that Howard North was the contractor (T-44-51). It is, therefore, ORDERED: That the certification of respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, Number CG 0007016, be and is hereby revoked. Respondent is hereby notified that he has thirty (30) days after the date of the Final Order to appeal pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Appellate Rules. Dated this 3rd day of August, 1979. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD BY: JOHN HENRY JONES, President
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2005),1 by abandoning a construction project, and, if so, the appropriate discipline; and Whether Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(i) by virtue of her violation of section 489.127(1)(f), which prohibits engaging in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor without being licensed, and, if so, the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence, the following facts were made: Ms. Curbelo is a certified building contractor, doing business as A+ Construction & Management, Inc. The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board issued Ms. Curbelo License No. CBC 1255321 on March 12, 2007. She is currently licensed as the qualifying agent of A+ Construction & Management, Inc., and she was issued qualified business organization certificate of authority License No. QB53665. Before March 12, 2007, Ms. Curbelo was not licensed pursuant to chapter 489, Part I, to practice construction contracting. In December 2005, Ms. Curbelo purchased A+ Construction & Remodeling, Inc., and became its sole corporate officer. She renamed the entity A+ Construction & Management, Inc. (A+ Construction). Before March 12, 2007, A+ Construction was not duly licensed pursuant to chapter 489, Part I. Further, its predecessor, A+ Construction & Remodeling, Inc., was never duly licensed pursuant to chapter 489, Part I. On January 25, 2006, Mr. Torres was provided a proposal from Ms. Curbelo, doing business as A+ Construction & Remodeling, Inc. The proposal was to remodel, renovate, and repair Mr. Torres' home located at 1031 Hunting Lodge Drive, Miami Springs, Florida 33166. On January 27, 2006, Mr. Torres accepted the proposal, and it formed the agreement between Ms. Curbelo and Mr. Torres. Mr. Torres made an initial payment of $24,900.00 to A+ Construction on February 6, 2006, which was due under the contract upon acceptance. The agreed contract price for the work was $166,000.00. The contract contained a description of the work to be completed and a draw schedule that provided for payment as the work progressed. Mr. Torres made payments to A+ Construction for the time period of February 8, 2006, through April 10, 2007. The payments totaled $157,700.00 and corresponded with a majority of the work contracted to be completed under the contract. The only draw that Mr. Torres did not pay was in the amount of $8,300.00 that was due "upon completion" of the work. Mr. Torres credibly testified that he paid A+ Construction for work that had not been completed in order to move the job along to completion. Furthermore, Mr. Torres credibly testified that when he would question Mr. Luis Curbelo, the job-site foreman, about the status of the work, Mr. Curbelo would threaten to walk off the job. Mr. Torres identified a check, Petitioner's Exhibit 6, that he made payable to First Call Roofing dated August 23, 2007, in the amount of $5,000.00. Mr. Torres explained that he paid First Call Roofing because he was desperate to get his leaking roof repaired. Mr. Torres paid this amount even though he had previously paid A+ Construction for repairs to the roof as part of the contract. The evidence also showed that during the work, Mr. Torres requested change orders which were not part of the original contract. Although these change orders increased the costs above the original contract, it was not disputed that Mr. Torres fully paid A+ Construction for all of the work outside of the contract. Sometime in late August 2007, A+ Construction stopped work on the job and failed to return. Mr. Torres credibly testified that he had an estimate from another contractor that the construction job was left approximately 40 percent completed and that it would cost an estimated amount of $108,000.00 to complete the job. The Department, however, did not introduce any non-hearsay evidence to support the estimate to complete the work or the costs to complete the construction. After A+ Construction stopped work on the job, Mr. Torres testified that he called in a series of inspections and that his home had passed the inspections. He stated that a majority of the inspections had been called in by him. Ms. Curbelo and Mr. Luis Curbelo offered the following three explanations for why A+ Construction stopped work on Mr. Torres' house: first, Mr. Torres failed to approve a payment draw concerning installation of windows; second, Mr. Torres' construction job included work for which Mr. Torres had not paid; and finally, Mr. Torres attempted to undercut A+ Construction by directly dealing with its subcontractors. None of these offered reasons is supported by the evidence. The record clearly showed that Mr. Torres made all of the payments required under the contract, except the final draw of $8,300.00, which was due on completion of the job. Consequently, under the contract, Mr. Torres had fully paid, including amounts for windows, all amounts that were owed under the contract when A+ Construction abandoned the job. The final draw was not due until completion, and A+ Construction had not completed the job. Next, the record clearly shows that Mr. Torres paid for all change orders. Therefore, the record does not support Ms. Curbelo's claim that A+ Construction stopped work because of non-payment. Finally, the record clearly showed that Mr. Torres contracted with the roofing subcontractor to do work that A+ Construction had been paid to do, but had not done. Thus, the evidence did not support the contention that A+ Construction had stopped work because Mr. Torres attempted to undercut them by dealing with the subcontractors. The record clearly shows that Ms. Curbelo, doing business as A+ Construction, abandoned the construction job. Next, the record does not support the claim that the building inspections showed that 85 percent of the remodeling had been completed on the job and that work stopped because of Mr. Torres' non-payment. Considering that Ms. Curbelo stopped work in August 2007, a review of the building inspections shows that many of the inspections occurred after she abandoned the job. None of the inspections shows the percentage of work completed by A+ Construction. Finally, the record does not support Ms. Curbelo's testimony that Mr. Torres was aware that at the time of entering into the contract that she did not have a contractor's license and that the job was under the supervision of Joe Anon (Mr. Anon). Ms. Curbelo testified that Mr. Torres was aware the Mr. Anon would be the general contractor, as his name was on the January 25, 2006, contract. Interestingly, the document that Ms. Curbelo relies upon for her testimony is a proposal dated January 25, 2006, from A+ Construction & Management, Inc. This document is nearly identical to the 11-page proposal from the A+ Construction & Remodeling, Inc., to Mr. Torres on the same date for the repairs to the home. However, two important differences are found on the faces of the two exhibits. On Respondent's Exhibit 2, under the logo of "A+ Construction" are the terms "& Management, Inc. For Joe Anon, GC." In contrast, Petitioner's Exhibit 3 shows the logo of "A+ Construction & Remodeling" with no reference to the later company or Mr. Anon's name. Both of these exhibits purport to be from the same proposal given to Mr. Torres on the same day. Yet, out of the composite exhibit of 12 pages, only Ms. Curbelo's offered document contains Ms. Curbelo's subsequent company's name or reference to Mr. Anon. Moreover, unlike the Department's exhibit, the exhibit offered by Ms. Curbelo is unsigned by Mr. Torres. Consequently, the document offered by Ms. Curbelo is untrustworthy. Thus, the undersigned rejects as unbelievable Ms. Curbelo's claims that Mr. Torres knew that she was not a licensed general contractor and that the construction project was being overseen by a licensed contractor. Mr. Torres credibly testified in rebuttal that he did not meet Mr. Anon until after Ms. Curbelo abandoned the job. Further, Mr. Torres credibly testified that his "biggest mistake was paying ahead" to get work completed. The Department's total investigative costs of this case, excluding attorney's fees, is $414.57. The evidence showed that Ms. Curbelo does not have any prior disciplinary actions against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board: Finding Respondent, Chandra Beth Curbelo, guilty of having violated section 489.129(1)(j), Count I of the Administrative Complaint, imposing as a penalty a fine of $7,500.00, and placing Ms. Curbelo's license on probation for a period of four years; Finding Ms. Curbelo guilty of having violated sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.129(1)(i), as set out in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, imposing a fine of $7,500.00, and placing her license on probation for a period of four years; and Requiring Ms. Curbelo to pay the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $414.57. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 5th day of January, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by obtaining licensure by fraud or misrepresentation.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensure of certified general contractors. The Respondent Lawrence I. Paul, III, ("Respondent") is a licensed general contractor, holding State of Florida licenses GC C046485 and CG CA46485. On or about December 12, 1988, the Respondent submitted his application to the Department of Professional Regulation seeking leave to take the examination for certification as a general contractor. The Respondent subsequently took and passed the certified general contractors examination. In his application, the Respondent states that he is qualified to take the examination by virtue of having four years of proven experience as a workman or foreman of which at least one year was as a foreman. On the experience verification form submitted to the DPR as part of his application the Respondent states that from January, 1977 to January, 1980, he had been employed as a construction workman and that from January 1980 to January 1981 he had been employed as a construction foreman. The application includes an experience verification form executed by the Respondent and Paula Wisnik, a New York licensed architect. The form indicates that the Respondent had experience in steel erection form work, masonry walls, concrete slabs, footings, site work, excavation, rebar, trusses, and floor and ceiling joists, in single family residences, strip stores and high rise condominiums ten stories and higher. The experience verification form executed by Ms. Wisnik and the Respondent states as follows: I have read the CANDIDATE INFORMATION BOOKLET and reviewed the experience requirements and understand that any false information provided on this form may subject the person(s) signing below to disciplinary action and possible loss of license. I understand that DIRECT KNOWLEDGE does NOT mean that I am relying on a statement from the applicant that he has met the requirements. Ms. Wisnik has no direct knowledge of the Applicant's experience or of the applicant personally. Her knowledge was based upon information provided to her by Peter Wendt, another licensed architect. The Respondent originally sought to have Mr. Wendt complete the experience verification form. Mr. Wendt forwarded the form to Ms. Wisnik and she subsequently signed the document. Mr. Wendt has no direct personal knowledge of the Respondent's experience as set forth on the experience verification form. Mr. Wendt did not meet the Respondent until the Respondent's move to Florida, which occurred subsequent to the period of employment identified in the application. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that at the time the application was completed, the Respondent did not have the claimed four years of proven experience as construction worker or foreman. The Respondent's application states that first he became employed in the construction trade in January, 1977. In fact, he became employed full time in late December, 1978, with Paul Brothers, Inc., a family owned fire restoration business in Philadelphia. He worked primarily as a salesman and estimator with Paul Brothers until June, 1982, a period of approximately three and one-half years. Although there were periods when the Respondent worked on- site, it was not his primary responsibility throughout the employment period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order revoking the licensure of Lawrence I. Paul, III, as a certified general contractor, license numbers GC C046485 and CG CA46485. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 19th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-0193 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1. The proposed finding is modified to reflect that the Respondent did not hold the licenses prior to examination. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 5. Rejected, illogical and unsupported by evidence. 6-7. Rejected, not supported by credible and persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Robert G. Harris, Esq. Senior Attorney Dept. of Professional Regulation 2295 Victoria Avenue #263 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Timothy J. Murty, Esq. 1633 Periwinkle Way, Suite A Sanibel, Florida 33957 Wellington H. Meffert, II Chief Construction Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was the holder of general contractor's license number CG C007235, and certified residential contractor's license number CR C006769. On or about January 6, 1976, Respondent entered into a Building Agreement with Walter and Ellen Scott (hereinafter "owners") for construction of a residence to be located at 10244 Deerwood Club Road in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Among the provisions contained in this agreement was the following: [Respondent] will construct house for actual Construction Costs plus $10,000 profit. Addendum to contract Number 19 contains construction estimate sheet and allowance sheet which is guaranteed by [Respondent] not to exceed $85,000, plus $10,000 profit. All construction costs above $85,000 will be absorbed by contractor resulting from faulty workmanship or incorrect overall estimate. Additional costs resulting from exceeding allowances or phases not covered by estimate, (Wallpaper, Light fixtures, etc.), will be paid by purchaser. [Respondent] will be compensated at $2,500.00 out of each of the last four construction draws. Purchaser will be refunded in difference of construction under $85,000.00. Purchaser has the right to examine cost of construction at any stage to determine how close cost [sic] are running to estimate. (Emphasis added.) In addition, the Building Agreement contains a listing of allowances for various items such as carpet, flooring, wallpaper, doors, fireplaces, appliances, plumbing fixtures, wiring and windows. These provisions of the contract deal with standard items to be included in the construction, absent some request and agreement between the parties to specific changes. With respect to changes, the agreement provides specifically that: Should the Purchaser at any time during the progress of said residence require any alterations to or deviations from, additions to, or omissions, in said Agreement, which are acceptable to the Contractor, they shall have the right and power to make such change or changes when practicable, and the same shall in no way make void the Agreement; but the differences shall be added to, or deducted from the amount of the Agreement as the case may be, by a fair and reasonable evaluation . . . (emphasis added.) Finally, the Building Agreement also provides that Respondent was to use his best effort to deliver the completed residence on or about 180 days from the start of construction, which, by terms of the agreement, is defined as the date on which footings are poured or the day rough plumbing was begun. Although Respondent obtained a building permit for construction of the residence, from the City of Jacksonville, Florida, dated February 5, 1976, there is nothing in the record of this proceeding on which a firm determination can be made as to when construction actually started. Although the actual starting date for construction is unclear, it is obvious from the record that Respondent and the owners began to experience problems from the outset. The owners received a notice of lien soon after the slab for the residence was poured. In addition, there appears to have been some miscalculation with respect to the size of the slab for the structure to which some additions had to be made. Respondent apparently failed to pay for the initial treatment for subterranean termites at the time of the pouring of the slab, and the termite bond on the residence was cancelled. In addition, the slab appears to have been poured in such a fashion as to require adjustments in the construction of the driveway to avoid rainwater runoff entering the residence. One of the more difficult problems in the initial stages of construction involved leaks in the roof of the structure. When it appeared that efforts to repair the leaks had not been entirely successful, the owners requested that Respondent delay work on the interior in order that repairs on the roof might be accomplished before proceeding in order to avoid interior damage. After an extended delay occasioned by an unusual period of dry weather which prevented a determination as to whether the roof would continue to leak, work on the interior was recommenced, only to discover that the roof had not been sufficiently repaired. As a result of continuing problems with the roof, work which had been completed in the interior of the structure was damaged by rainwater. In fact, as of the date of final hearing in this cause, it appears that final repairs to the roof had still not been accomplished. It appears from the record that construction delays attributable to roof leaks in the residence set the tone for the remainder of the business dealings between Respondent and the owners. From this point forward, the relationship between Respondent and the owners became virtually adversary in tone. This state of affairs was complicated by an extensive series of changes or substitutions in the original plans and specifications by the owners. As indicated above, the original Building Agreement contained provisions concerning allowances for various portions of the work, and optional items which could be added at additional charge to the owner. Unfortunately, the record is unclear as to exact dollar amounts attributable to extras selected by the owners, as well as to amounts actually received by Respondent in the course of construction draws on the original contract. However, it is clear that extras selected by the owners totalled between $20,000 and $25,000. These items, which were not contained in the original contract, included ceramic tile flooring; double oven; wooden window frames; extensive extra bricking work, including brick more expensive than that described in the original contract; a larger driveway; burglar alarms; simulated marble vanities, tubs and sinks instead of cast iron fixtures as originally contemplated; crown moldings and interior door moldings throughout the interior of the residence; more expensive plumbing fixtures; extensive parquet flooring; larger closet areas; and extensive changes in the location of plumbing fixtures and electrical outlets. In addition, what appears from the evidence to have been a handmade stairway was substituted at an additional cost of approximately $5,000. The construction of the staircase not only included additional expense, but for some reason not entirely apparent from the record, caused additional delay in construction of other areas in the residence. Respondent apparently did not maintain a separate checking account for construction draws on this project, instead comingling disbursements on the construction loan with other funds in his general checking account. Additionally, no documentation was submitted by either Petitioner or Respondent to establish dates on which draw requests were either submitted by Respondent to the owners or the financial institution financing construction, or the dates on which any such draw requests were funded, either in whole or in part. As a result, it is virtually impossible from the record in this proceeding to determine the basis for disbursements from the construction loan account, or the disposition of those sums once disbursed. Although there was some general testimony about the filing of liens by various subcontractors, no documentation of these liens was submitted into evidence. What is, however, apparent from the record is that in early 1977, almost one year after initial disbursement of construction funds to Respondent, almost the entire $95,000 constituting the construction account was depleted. At that time the residence was approximately 90 percent complete. Thereafter, by Agreement dated February 18, 1977, Respondent and owners agreed that an additional $25,000 would be necessary to complete construction of the residence. Respondent acknowledged that he was in default under the terms of the original Building Agreement, and agreed to reimburse owners for the additional $25,000 needed to complete construction of the residence, subject to certain adjustments. Respondent agreed to complete construction of the residence within 40 days, and further agreed that the financial institution holding the mortgage on the residence was authorized to disburse the additional $25,000 directly to subcontractors, materialmen and laborers for work performed for services rendered on the property. Respondent executed a note in the amount of $25,000, secured by certain property belonging to him as evidence of his obligation to complete construction. However, shortly after execution of the February, 1977, Agreement, Respondent and owners had a dispute over payment of certain laborers. As a result, Respondent was advised by owners not to return to the job site. After this notification, evidence in the record establishes that Respondent contacted the financial institution which held the mortgage on the property and advised them that he would not be completing construction of the residence. It is clear from the record that the owners had more than ample cause for dissatisfaction with both the quality of workmanship and the timeliness with which work was performed by Respondent. Those matters are not, however, at issue in this proceeding. It is also abundantly clear that both Respondent and owners conducted their dealings with one another in a most informal fashion. With the exception of the original Building Agreement, and the February, 1977, agreement, most of the dealings between Respondent and the owners were verbal. Additionally, the absence of detailed documentary evidence makes resolution of many of the factual disputes in this proceeding difficult at best. However, the record clearly establishes that Petitioner failed to request that official notice be taken of any of the provisions of the building codes or other laws of the City of Jacksonville, and that none of these codes or laws were offered into evidence in this proceeding. As a result, a motion to dismiss that portion of the Administrative Complaint alleging violation of applicable building codes was granted by the Hearing Officer at the close of Petitioner's case. Further, although the owner testified as to his belief that certain building materials were "floating" between the project which is the subject of this proceeding and other projects being constructed by Respondent, there is no direct evidence to establish that Respondent, in fact, diverted any funds or property improperly. Finally, as to the question of abandonment, it appears from the record that the owner dismissed the Respondent prior to the expiration of the 40-day period contemplated in the February, 1977, Agreement, and that Respondent advised both the owner and the financial institution financing construction of the project that he would not complete construction of the residence as contemplated in the various agreements between the parties.
Findings Of Fact Findings of Fact 1-13 are made based upon the Stipulation of the parties filed on July 10, 1987. Respondent is, and was at all times material to the pending amended administrative complaint, a certified building contractor having been issued license number CB CAO9793 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material the pending amended administrative complaint Respondent's certified building contractor license (CB CAO9793) qualified "George E. Longino and Associates, Inc." with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent is, and was at all times material to the pending amended administrative complaint, a certified air conditioning contractor having been issued license number CA CO24348 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material to the pending amended administrative complaint, Respondent's certified air conditioning contractor license (CA CO24348) qualified "George E. Longino and Associates, Inc." with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent is, and was at all times material to the pending administrative complaint, a registered mechanical contractor having been issued license number PM 0031246 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material to the pending administrative complaint, Respondent's mechanical contractor license qualified "J. C. and Sons, Inc." with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At no time material to the pending amended administrative complaint was Respondent the qualifying agent for "First City Contractors, Inc." as defined by Sections 489.105(4) and 489.119, Florida Statutes. At no time material to the pending amended administrative complaint was Charles L. Crowe registered, certified or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At no time material to the pending amended administrative complaint was "First City Contractor's, Inc." registered, certified or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On or about January 23, 1986, Charles L. Crowe d/b/a First City Contractors, Inc., contracted with Steve Bell to construct a room addition at 3110 Carrevero Drive West, Jacksonville, Florida. The contract price was approximately $25,000. On or about March 10, 1986, the City of Jacksonville, Building and Zoning Inspection Division, issued building permit number 6196 to George E. Longino and Associates, Inc. The above referenced building permit was for the construction of a room addition at the residence of Steve Bell, 3110 Carrevero Drive West, Jacksonville, Florida. The following Findings of Fact are based upon the evidence introduced at formal hearing. In December, 1985, or January, 1986, Charles L. Crowe, sole owner of First City Contractors, Inc., approached Longino and asked him to become a partner in the business and to pull permits and be the qualifying agent for First City Contractors, Inc. Longino advised Crowe that he would not be interested in doing that until he had resolved certain pending problems with his licenses. Specifically, the Construction Industry Licensing Board had filed a disciplinary action against Respondent's licenses and that case had been heard and a Recommended Order entered on October 30, 1985. The Recommended Order was scheduled to be considered by the Construction Industry Licensing Board on January 9, 1986. Longino did agree to pull permits for any job on which he would be paid to supervise the construction. Longino did pull the permit and supervise the construction of a garage addition in Arlington, Jacksonville, Florida, for First City Contractors in January or February, 1986. On January 23, 1986, Charles L. Crowe, doing business as First City Contractors, Inc., entered into a contract with Steve Bell to construct a room addition to a residence located at 3110 Carrevero Drive, Jacksonville, Florida. The contract price was $25,000. Based upon the contract, Crowe asked Longino to use his license number to sign a permit application for the Bell job. Longino used a building permit application form which he had in his truck and filled in the pertinent information on the building permit application. Specifically, Longino filled in the name of the licensed contractor as "First City Contractors, Inc." and signed his name as the licensee with license number CB CA09793. Longino signed the building permit application on or about the last week of January, 1986. Financing was not secured for the Bell job until March, 1986. On March 10, 1986, Crowe used the permit application which had been previously signed by Longino and sent an employee of First City Contractors, Inc., Robert Cumpston, to secure a building permit from the City of Jacksonville for the Bell job. Specifically, permit number 6196 was issued based upon the permit application which had been previously signed by Longino. On February 19, 1986, the Construction Industry Licensing Board entered a Final Order suspending Longino's licenses. Longino received notice of the suspension on February 24, 1986, by certified mail. Longino advised Crowe that his licenses had been suspended within a few days following receipt of the Final Order. Despite the knowledge that Longino's licenses had been suspended, Crowe used the presigned building permit application to secure a building permit for the Bell job on March 10, 1986. Building permit number 6196 was issued to Longino's license number doing business as George E. Longino and Associates, Inc. The name of the business was changed from that which was stated on the building permit application because Longino was not a qualifying agent for First City Contractors, Inc. He was only a qualifying agent for George E. Longino and Associates, Inc. A permit could not be issued to First City Contractors, Inc. using Longino's license number. The Bell job was completed using permit number 6196. Longino did supervise that construction and was present at the site on a daily basis. Permit number 6196 was posted at the site. Despite Longino's statements that he did not know that the permit was issued to his license number, it is found that Longino knew or should have known that permit number 6196 was issued to his license number, doing business as George E. Longino and Associates, Inc. Longino did nothing to remedy the problem even though his licenses had been suspended.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order suspending the licenses of George E. Longino for a period of one (1) year in addition to the previous suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1987, in Leon County, Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 11th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William Bruce Muench, Esquire 438 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
The Issue Did Respondent commit the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 11, 2000, and if so, what discipline is appropriate?
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 charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified residential contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CR CO13253 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as an individual. On or about November 20, 1993, Respondent entered into a written contractual agreement (contract) with Kevin Watkins (Watkins) to construct a single family residence at 126 Meadow Lark Boulevard, Lot 65, Indian Lake Estates, Florida. The contract price was $333,944.00. Between December 7, 1993, and February 1, 1996, Watkins and Respondent executed 102 addenda to the contract which increased the contract price by approximately $241,874.43, for a total amount of approximately $575.818.43. On or about December 9, 1993, Respondent obtained permit number 93-120l850 from the Polk County Building Department and commenced work on the project. The contract provided that the "project shall be substantially completed on or about 195 days from the date all building permits are issued." However, due to the 100-plus addenda to the contract, it was estimated that an additional 190 days would be needed to complete the project. Additionally, construction ceased on the home for approximately 60 days so that Watkins could explore the possibility of a construction loan. However, due to the extent of completion, the lending institutions decided not to make any construction loans. On or about May 27, 1996, Watkins moved to Florida with the expectations that his home would be completed within a short period of time. (Watkins' recollection was that the home was to be completed in a couple of weeks. Respondent's recollection was that the home was to be completed in a couple of months.) In any event, Respondent did not complete the Watkins home within a couple of weeks or a couple of months. After Watkins moved to Florida, Respondent paid for Watkins to live in a Best Western motel for a few weeks. Subsequently, Respondent moved Watkins into a rental home for which Respondent paid the rent through September 1996. Beginning October 1996 through July 1999, Watkins paid $600.00 per month for a total of $20,400.00 as rent on the rental home. In early 1998, Respondent and Watkins went through the home, identified those items which had not been completed and Respondent made a handwritten list of those items. Respondent failed to complete the items identified on the list. In fact, shortly thereafter, Respondent ceased working on the project and was unresponsive to attempts to contact him. At the time Respondent ceased working on Watkins' home, the home was approximately 75 percent complete. While this estimation of completion may not be totally accurate, it is the best that could be derived based on the evidence presented, including Respondent's testimony to which I gave some credence. Watkins paid Respondent $561,617.91, which represents approximately 97.534 percent of the total contract price plus addenda to the contract. Seventy-five percent of the contract price plus addenda to the contract equals $431,863.82 for an overpayment of $129,754.09. To date, Respondent has not returned any of the money he received from Watkins above the amount completed under the contract. From early 1998, until August 1998, when Watkins had Respondent removed as general contractor on the building permit, Respondent failed to perform any work on the home for a period in excess of 90 days. Respondent contracted with Jack Eggleston to install cabinets in Watkins home. Eggleston performed under the contract but Respondent failed to pay Eggleston in full, requiring Watkins to pay Eggleston $1,200.00. After Watkins' home was partially complete, Respondent advised Watkins that he had the home insured when in fact he did not have the home covered with insurance. While Respondent was building Watkins' home, Respondent and Watkins entered into a joint venture called Contractors of Central Florida to build modular homes sometime after January 1, 1995. Respondent contends that some of the checks Watkins claims as payment under the contract for his home, were in fact reimbursement to Respondent for funds he had advanced for the joint venture. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that any of the checks Watkins claims as payment under the contract for his home were in fact reimbursement for funds advanced by Respondent for the joint venture. Up until the time of the final hearing, the Department had incurred costs for the investigation and prosecution of this matter, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $1,451.28.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and after careful review of the guidelines set forth in Rule 61G4-17.001(8) and (11), Florida Administrative Code, and the circumstances for purpose of mitigation or aggravation of penalty set forth in Rule 61G4-17.002, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Department: Enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h)2., Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty therefor an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00; Enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty therefor an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00; Assessing costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $1,451.28, plus any such further costs which have or may accrue through the taking of final agency action and; Requiring Respondent to pay restitution to Kevin Watkins in the amount of $129,754.09 which represents the amounts accepted by Respondent for work not performed. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of October, 2000, 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202 Ronald J. Powell Post Office Box 7043 Indian Lake Estates, Florida 33855 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 489, 455, and 120, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent James J. Hastings was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CG C009847. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a qualifying agent for Hastings Construction Company, Inc. Respondent and Candace Reinertz are married. At all times material to the violations charged, she was operating under her maiden name for all purposes. At all times material hereto, Candace Reinertz was not licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, and the Respondent had knowledge thereof. Over several years, Ms. Reinertz regularly assisted Mr. Hastings in the operation of Hastings Construction Company, Inc., including day to day supervision of pool, small building, and house construction and pulling building permits for that corporation. She had been authorized in writing by Hastings to pull building permits for him on specific projects (not necessarily in a corporate name) at least since April 27, 1987. At all times material hereto, Castles `n' Pools, Inc., 205 Third Avenue, Melbourne Beach, Florida, was a firm that was not qualified with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, and Respondent had knowledge thereof. This corporation was intended to become a venture to be run jointly by husband and wife. Castles `n' Pools, Inc. had been qualified as a corporation with the Florida Secretary of State and had received an occupational license. The corporate officers/directors were Reinertz and Hastings. However, a Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board License was never applied for by Ms. Reinertz in her own name nor was one applied for by Mr. Hastings as a qualifier for Castles `n' Pools, Inc. On June 27, 1987, Castles `n' Pools, Inc., through Candace Reinertz, contracted with Zimmer Dominque for construction of a pool at Mr. Dominque's residence located at 866 Van Circle, N.E., Palm Bay, Florida, for $7,750. The contract promised completion of the pool by September 23, 1987, barring adverse weather and mishaps. It is Ms. Reinertz's testimony that she inadvertently filled in a Castles `n' Pools, Inc. blank contract when she intended to use a Hastings Construction Company blank contract. The blank forms are, indeed, very similar. Mr. Dominque's testimony is that he thought at all times that he was contracting with Castles `n' Pools, Inc., through Ms. Reinertz. Although he admits that at least by September 22, 1988, he considered Respondent in charge of the project and that he thereafter dealt directly with Respondent, Mr. Dominque's payment by checks made out to Castles `n' Pools and/or Candace Reinertz dated June 27, July 7, September 22, and September 24, 1987 (P-10) support a finding that all work to that point was progressing in the name of Castles `n' Pools. Also supportive of such a finding is that on July 6, 1987, Pyramid Equipment Service billed Castles `n' Pools for digging the hole for the pool (R-8) and on August 11, 1987, R & J Crane Service billed Castles `n' Pools for setting the pool in place (R-9). However, the issuance of the building permit to Hastings Construction Company, Inc. and the chronology of how the permit came to be issued (see infra.) suggest that Mr. Hastings did not know about the Castles `n' Pools connection until at least late September. Respondent's and Ms. Reinertz' testimony that Respondent did not find out that the wrong contract had been used until after construction was underway on the Dominque property is unrefuted and the exact date of his discovery was not demonstrated, but he admits he did not attempt to qualify Castles `n' Pools once he found out. On June 29, 1987, the Respondent authorized Candace Reinertz to pull a permit for the construction of a pool at Mr. Dominque's residence. The authorization, (P-12), does not specify either Castles `n' Pools nor Hastings Construction Company, Inc. as the construction corporation applicant. Ms. Reinertz's subsequent permit application was denied on July 2, 1987, by the Palm Bay Building Department, for failure to include a survey certified by a civil engineer or architect. The record does not reflect in what corporate name Ms. Reinertz made this initial application. She may not even have gotten as far as filling out a permit application before she was refused at the permit desk, but the line drawing prepared for that application (R-1) specifies that the line drawing was that of Hastings Construction Company, Inc. Mr. Hastings regularly did line drawings for Hastings Construction Company, Inc. projects on a particular machine in that corporation's offices. The certified survey requirement was a recent innovation of the Palm Bay Building Code. On July 6, 1987, Castles `n' Pools, Inc. delivered the prefabricated fiberglass pool, excavated the site and dropped the pool in the hole. No further efforts of permanent installation occurred at that time, due to failure to obtain a permit. A dispute then ensued between Hastings and Reinertz on one side and Mr. Dominque on the other over who must provide the survey and how. This dispute occasioned some delay in the project, but on July 26, 1987, Ms. Reinertz again applied, with a certified survey, to the Palm Bay Building Department for a permit for the construction of Mr. Dominque's pool, listing the builder as Hastings Construction Company, Inc. (P-5). On July 30, 1987, permit number 8702101 was issued by the Palm Bay Building Department for the construction of Mr. Dominque's pool by Hastings Construction Company, Inc. (P-6). Thereafter, work on the pool progressed sporadically until September 22, 1987, when the pool floated up out of the ground. The pool floated up out of the ground during a rainstorm and after Respondent had left Mr. Dominque with instructions to fill the pool to a certain level with water. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Dominque failed to follow Respondent's directions with precision. Subsequent to September 22, 1987, the pool was reinserted in the excavation by crane and by October 2, 1987, the deck was installed. Two or three months later a crack appeared in the pool which has since been repaired, however, the drain and light still do not work properly, and Mr. Dominque had to pay an additional $50 for cleanup of the resulting debris. Some of the delay in completion of work on the pool can be attributed to the dispute about the survey, some to injury of a key employee, and some to heavy rains, but the testimony of Mr. Nasrallah, architect and expert contractor, is accepted that 30 to 45 days would be sufficient to install the entire pool except for the pool deck even in rainy weather. Also, Mr. Dominque's and Respondent's testimony is in agreement that Respondent (not Ms. Reinertz) was fired for a period of time and then rehired. The length of time and the dates that Respondent was off the job is unclear, but it was minimally from September 9 to September 22, 1987. Oversight of the work at all times was by the Respondent. Mr. Dominque has paid the total contract price of $7,750 and expressed himself that any amount he questioned has either "evened out" or been paid back by Respondent. Stan Alexander is a certified general contractor and former chairman of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. In his expert opinion as a contractor, construction began when the hole was first dug on July 6, 1987 and the pool was placed in it even temporarily. Also in his expert opinion as a contractor, Mr. Alexander determined that the contractor responsible for the installation of this pool was guilty of gross negligence or incompetence due in part to the insufficiency of dewatering devices (including a hydrostatic device) and placement of the responsibility to fill the pool on the home owner. Mark Nasrallah is a registered Florida architect and a licensed general contractor. Also in his expert opinion as a contractor, construction began on the job when the pool was placed in the excavation. It is also Mr. Nasrallah's expert opinion that the contractor responsible for this job is guilty of gross negligence or incompetence. Although Mr. Alexander was unfamiliar with any local Palm Bay zoning or permitting provision which would allow "site clearing" prior to excavation/construction, and although Mr. Nasrallah considered it "questionable" whether the digging for the pool constituted "construction without a permit," Mr. Nasrallah's assessment that digging the hole and putting the pool in the hole even temporarily was in excess of mere site clearing and was work which clearly began construction is accepted. Section 103 of the Standard Building Code has been adopted by the City of Palm Bay. It provides as follows: A person, firm or corporation shall not erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, or demolish any building or structure in the applicable jurisdiction, or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining a building permit for such building or structure from the Building Official. Respondent was disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in October, 1984, for violation of Sections 489.129(1)(c), (g), (j); 489.119(2), (3); and 455.227(1)(a) Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Sections 489.129 (1)(d) and (m) Florida Statutes, issuing a letter of guidance with regard to the permitting violation, fining the Respondent $750.00 for gross negligence or incompetence, and dismissing the remaining two charges. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of November, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH Case No. 87-5172 The following constitute rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective Proposed Findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner PFOF: Accepted in FOF 1. Accepted in FOF 2. Accepted in FOF 3. Accepted in FOF 5. Accepted in FOF 7. Accepted in FOF 8. 7-8. Accepted and expanded to more accurately reflect the record in FOF 10 9. Accepted in FOF 11. 10-11. Accepted and expanded to more accurately reflect the record in FOF 12. Accepted and expanded to more accurately reflect the record in FOF 13. Accepted in FOF 14. 14-15. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 15-17. The modifications are made to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, the specific expert opinion as given by Messrs. Alexander and Nasrallah (discussed in the Conclusions of Law) and to reflect that some hydrostatic devices were used, some removed, and at least one left in for a period of time. 16. Accepted in FOF 19. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 James J. Hastings 205 Third Avenue Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
