The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's contractor's license based upon the alleged violations of Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes, set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the "Board") as a certified general contractor having been issued License No. CG C024612. Respondent has been a licensed contractor since 1983. On May 3, 1991, the Board filed a Final Order in Board Case Nos. 89-009986 and 89-013330 imposing a reprimand against Respondent. The Final Order was issued as part of the settlement of an amended administrative complaint filed against Respondent by Petitioner regarding certain unrelated transactions. Respondent was the qualifying agent for Willie William Construction Company, Inc. until October 1985. At that time, as a result of a corporate name change, Respondent became the qualified agent for Ashar Construction Company. On February 21, 1985, the Unsafe Structures Board of the Building and Zoning Department for Dade County advised Ruby Delancy that a hearing would be conducted on March 12, 1985 to determine whether a one story framed residence that Mrs. Delancy owned at 1005 NW 58th Street in Miami (the "House" or the "Property") should be demolished. The Notice indicated that the structure was "open, vacant, vandalized, filled with combustible materials; posing a serious fire hazard. Structure is a danger to human life and public welfare." The Notice estimated the present value of the building at $16,080 and the estimated cost of repairs at $51,120. The County's records indicate that a Notice of Violation regarding the Property had been issued to the owner on October 31, 1984. Facing imminent demolition of the House, Mrs. Delancy began to investigate possible ways to get the House repaired. She filed an application with the City of Miami for a low income, low interest loan that was funded through Federal HUD Community Development Funds. Her efforts to obtain funding to repair the House, delayed the proceedings that had been initiated to demolish the structure. In September of 1985, the City approved Mrs. Delancy for a grant of $10,000 and loan of $20,000 to repair the House. Mrs. Delancy has no other funds to pay for repairs to the Property other than the $30,000 she was obtaining through the City Program. Under the City's program, Mrs. Delancy was responsible for selecting a contractor. Mrs. Delancy contacted Respondent, who inspected the Property and prepared a construction estimate which was submitted to the City. Respondent entered into a contract (the "Contract") dated September 20, 1985 with Mrs. Delancy for home improvement work on the House. The total contract price was $29,870, which was to be paid in two installments: $10,835 on or before December 31, 1985 and a final payment of $19,035 on or before March 3, 1986. The evidence established that Respondent was initially reluctant to enter into the Contract and at least two other contractors refused to undertake the work given the limited funds available. However, Respondent agreed to take the job because of Mrs. Delancy's insistence and because of Respondent's sympathy for Mrs. Delancy's desperate situation in view of the imminent demolition of the House. The evidence also established that Mrs. Delancy requested Respondent to undertake additional work and/or services that were beyond the scope of the Contract. Among the extra items undertaken by Respondent was replacement of the floor in the family room. Additional expenses were also incurred because of unanticipated problems encountered during the renovation. For example one side of the house gave way during the renovation work. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there was no footing. Respondent was required to shore up that side of the House. In addition, the electrician was unable to get a meter because there was an outstanding electric bill for the Property. Respondent paid the old bill in order to get the meter connected. Similarly, she paid the gas company to get the stove hooked up. It does not appear Respondent received any additional compensation for the extra work. Except for $345 that Respondent paid for utilities on behalf of Mrs. Delancy, the evidence at the hearing was insufficient to place a dollar value on these extra services and expenses. The first installment under the Contract of $10,835 was paid to Respondent on or about December 31, 1985. In approximately January of 1986, Mrs. Delancy's son, Gerald Delancy, who had been living out of the state, returned to Miami and became involved in overseeing the construction on behalf of his mother. Gerald Delancy was not pleased with the quality of the construction and a great deal of tension developed between Gerald Delancy and Respondent. The final payment request form was submitted on February 20, 1986. Mrs. Delancy signed a document (the "Certificate of Completeness") indicating that the work was completed and the final payment was made to Respondent by the City on March 3, 1986. Gerald Delancy was present when his mother signed the Certificate of Completeness. She signed this Certificate against the advice of her son. At the time the document was signed, Respondent agreed in principal to complete any remaining work. The City Inspection Form which was posted on the project fails to indicate that a final inspection approval was obtained from the City. In addition, the evidence established that required roof inspections were not obtained prior to the final structural inspection. Gerald Delancy prepared a punch list of items which he felt were incomplete and submitted it to Respondent. It does not appear that this list was prepared until July of 1986. Because of the dispute between Respondent and Gerald Delancy as to what was required under the Contract, a copy of the punch list was also sent to the City. The punch list prepared by Gerald Delancy included a number of items which were beyond the scope of the Contract. For example, with respect to the plumbing, the complaints included the following: the water pressure was to low on the water line, the kitchen sink was too small, and the bathroom vanity was substandard. The Contract did not provide for a bathroom vanity. There were also complaints about ants and roaches and "missing shower rods and towel racks" even though these items were not specifically included within the Contract between Respondent and Mrs. Delancy. The City sent its estimator to the House to review the punch list items. The City's estimator felt that Respondent should provide another coat of paint and should complete some other minor repair work, but the estimator did not concur in many of Gerald Delancy's complaints. The City's rehabilitation estimator met with Respondent and Gerald Delancy at the House on July 15, 1986. At that meeting, Respondent agreed to correct certain matters and asked for one month to complete the work. On August 1, 1986, the work was not completed and Respondent requested an additional 30 days. On August 13, 1986, Respondent stated that she did not have the money to complete the work. According to the City's estimator, the cost to repair the construction deficiencies he noted would be approximately $2,500 to $3,000 as of the date of the hearing. During this period in August, Respondent did send some workers back to the house to complete some additional work. A dispute arose between those workers and Gerald Delancy. The exact nature and reasons for this dispute are not clear. Ultimately, Gerald Delancy refused to allow the workers to perform any work because he did not feel he received adequate answers to his inquiries as to the nature of the work they intended to perform. After the City refused to concur in all of his complaints, Gerald Delancy hired a building inspection company. He paid that company $534 and it rendered a report dated August 4, 1986 which detailed many other deficiencies in the construction. It is not clear whether this report was ever presented to Respondent. On or about November 3, 1986, Mrs. Delancy, at the urging of her son, filed a lawsuit against Respondent. On or about August 8, 1989, Mrs. Delancy obtained a final default judgement against Respondent in the amount of $65,000 plus costs of $102.50. Respondent claims that she was unaware of the lawsuit and the default final judgement until Petitioner's investigator questioned her about it on September 25, 1990. As of the date of the hearing in this case, Respondent has not appealed the judgement nor has she attempted to have it set aside or vacated. In addition to alleged construction defects, the default judgement included claims against Respondent for allegedly mishandling certain household goods and other property owned by Mrs. Delancy. The evidence presented in this case was confusing and inconclusive as to the nature and justification for these claims by the Delancys for property which Respondent was allegedly storing for Mrs. Delancy. Apparently, Respondent agreed to assist Mrs. Delancy by moving some of the furniture out of the house and placing it in storage during construction. The contract did not require Respondent to provide any moving or storage services and there is no evidence that Respondent was paid for this work. Some or all of the property that was moved out of the house was lost, stolen or destroyed. There is a dispute between the parties as to circumstances surrounding the loss of this property. The evidence presented in this case was insufficient to establish what happened to the property, who was responsible for it and/or how much it was worth. It does appear that the default judgement against Respondent includes a very high assessment for the property involved. However, as noted above, that judgement has not been vacated or appealed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint, finding the Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing the following disciplinary action against the Respondent: Imposition of an administrative fine of $1,000. Suspension of the Respondent's license for a period of one year, followed by two years probation under such terms as may be imposed by the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-6438 Only Petitioner submitted a proposed recommended order. The following rulings are made with respect to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4, 11, and 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 through 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14 through 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 through 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Dept. of Bus. and Prof. Reg. 401 NW 2nd Ave., Ste N-607 Miami, FL 33128 Agnes Sangster 9925 NW 25th Ave. Miami, FL 33147 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Dept. of Bus. and Prof. Reg. 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Richard Hickok, Exec. Dir. Construction Industry Licensing 7960 Arlington Expressway, Ste 300 Jacksonville, FL 32211-7467
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 12, 1984, a probable cause panel of the Construction Industry Licensing Board met to receive and review an investigative report resulting from complaints received from Carl Mayer Forrest Morgan, and Walter Booth concerning certain activities of Ronald D. Nutt, Petitioner. The panel found probable cause that Petitioner's activities had violated applicable statutory and rule provisions, and subsequently, on or about July 19, 1984, a five-count Administrative Complaint was issued against Petitioner charging him with disregarding an applicable building code, abandoning a construction project, making misleading and false representations, and engaging in fraud and misrepresentation in the practice of contracting. Petitioner disputed the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and requested a hearing. The case was sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to issue a Recommended Order based thereon. The matter was given Division of Administrative Hearing's Case Number 84-2920, and a hearing was held on March 27, 1985 before R. T. Carpenter, Hearing Officer. At the hearings one count arising from the Booth complaint was voluntarily dismissed. On June 13, 1985, a Recommended Order was issued in Case Number 84-2920 which recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Ronald D. Nutt. On or about July 11, 1985, the Board considered the Recommended Order, and after a review of the complete record adopted the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendation contained in the Recommended Order. The Board issued its Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in Case Number 84-2920 on August 7, 1985. In pertinent part, the following facts were found in Case Number 84-2920 by both the Hearing Officer and the Construction Industry Licensing Board: The principal disagreement (between Nutt, who was the Respondent in this prior case, and Mayer, the complaining witness) concerned the roof design, which Respondent contends was improper. Mayer initially refused to agree to modifications suggested by Respondent and would not retain an architect to clarify his intended design. Other disagreements led to Mayer's withholding of scheduled draw payments. Mayer refused to pay the first draw on completion of the foundation, even though it had been approved by the Melbourne Building Department. By August, 1983, Respondent's firm had completed work to the approximate point of the third draw, but had still received no draw payments. By this time Mayer had retained an attorney, and several unproductive meetings had been held regarding difficulties in completing the project. Mayer subsequently contacted the Melbourne Building Department to complain that the roof was being constructed according to plans not filed with the Building Department. This complaint was verified and a stop work order was placed on the project on August 10, 1983. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that Respondent had changed Mayer's roof design to one he believed was correct, but had failed to obtain Mayer's approval or file the change with the Building Department. The change made by Respondent was, according to his testimony, necessary to correct Mayer's design deficiency. Mayer's testimony to the contrary is rejected. Mayer refused to retain an architect as suggested by Respondent, and demonstrated no expertise in building design. Respondent's testimony on this point is, therefore, accepted. Further efforts to resolve disputes were unsuccessful. On February 1, 1984, Hallmark Builders, Inc. filed a claim of lien on the Mayer property for $28,559. Mayer counter-claimed, and the suits were ultimately settled through payment of $21,000 by Mayer to Hallmark Builders, Inc. Based upon these findings of fact, the following conclusion of law was reached by the Hearing Officer and Board in Case Number 84-2920: Respondent is guilty of violating a local building code by failing to file his change in plans prior to commencing construction under the change. He acknowledged this, but believed it was sufficient com- pliance to file such plans before the next inspection. This violation is not a serious one, and no disciplinary action was taken by local authorities other than the stop work order. Therefore, the charge under Subsection 489.129(1)(d), F.S., should be dismissed. The parties stipulated that at the conclusion of the Department of Professional Regulations Construction Industry Licensing Board's case-in-chief in Case Number 84-2920, Nutt moved for a directed verdict on the four counts remaining in the Administrative Complaint on which evidence was presented and this motion was denied by the Hearing Officer. Petitioner herein has established that his reasonable and necessary attorney fees and costs associated with Case Number 84- 2920 were $13,153.28. Petitioner has established that he is a "small business party" as defined in Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, since he operated as a professional practice and also a corporation with his principal office in Florida, and did not have more than 25 full-time employees or a net worth of more than two million dollars when the action in Case Number 84-2920 was initiated by the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board on or about July 12, 1984 with the finding of the probable cause panel. Petitioner has established that he was a prevailing small business party in Case Number 84-2920 since the Board's Final Order dismissing the charges in the Administrative Complaint was clearly in his favor and was not appealed. Petitioner has not established that the actions in Case Number 84-2920 of Respondent herein constituted unreasonable governmental action. This prior proceeding was therefore substantially justified at the time it was initiated on July 12, 1984 with the finding of the probable cause panel.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice as building contractors. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating such licensees on behalf of the state. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed individually as a Certified General Contractor pursuant to license number CG C 0055328 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the "Board"). Respondent has never been licensed by the Board as the qualifying agent for Mr. Gary Butler ("Butler"), an unlicensed contractor. In 1993, Respondent entered into an agreement with Butler who has never been licensed by the Board. The terms of the agreement require Respondent to pull permits for construction projects entered into by Butler. Butler pays Respondent for each permit or weekly. Respondent supervises some, but not all, of the projects undertaken by Butler. In August, 1993, Mr. Lynn Kyler ("Kyler"), the owner of a residence constructed by Ms. Denise Pyke ("Pyke"), a Certified Residential Contractor, asked Pyke to find a contractor to build a new dock and boat house at Kyler's residence. The Kyler residence is a lake front home located at 10250 State Road 561 A, Clermont, Lake County, Florida. Kyler authorized Pyke to act as Kyler's agent for construction of the dock and boat house. Kyler resided in Indiana from August through late fall of 1993. Pyke obtained recommendations of various candidates including Butler. Butler represented himself as a licensed and insured builder of docks and boat houses. Butler provided Pyke with a business card representing that Butler is licensed and insured. Pyke obtained cost and design proposals from Butler and Norquist Construction Company and communicated the proposals to Kyler. Kyler chose Butler. Butler agreed to demolish the existing dock and construct a new dock and boat house (the "project"). Kyler paid Butler the full contract price of $6,897.60. Prior to the completion of the project, neither Respondent nor Butler disclosed to Pyke or Kyler that Butler was unlicensed. Nor did they disclose that Butler would use Respondent's license to pull the permit for the project. Respondent knew that Butler is not licensed as a contractor, in any capacity. On August 25, 1993, Respondent and Butler went to the Lake County Building Department. Respondent used his license to pull Permit Number T93- 04793 for the project. The permit was issued to Respondent, listed Respondent's license as the certified general contractor, and was maintained in the official records of the Lake County Building Department. Respondent listed himself on the permit as the contractor for the entire project without limitation and without reference to Butler. Respondent was not authorized by Pyke or Kyler to pull the permit or to participate in the project. At the time, neither Pyke nor Kyler were aware of Respondent's existence or his role in the project. Respondent did not participate and had no involvement in the project except pulling the permit. The project was commenced by Butler in August, 1993, and completed shortly thereafter. Respondent did not supervise or participate in the construction of the project. Butler began the project without first filing a Notice of Commencement. Butler constructed the project with only a 10 foot setback in violation of the 25 foot setback required in Lake County Code Ordinance 10.0401(3)(d). Butler also failed to obtain an electrical permit in violation of Standard Building Code, Section 103.1.1. (1991). The project, as built by Butler, has no value to Kyler. The project failed final inspection for violation of the 25 foot setback and failure to obtain an electrical permit. The roof tiles on the boat house had to be removed because they were falling off the roof. The project itself is coming apart. It will cost between $10,000 and $12,000 to bring the project into compliance with local code requirements and to make it usable. Respondent was aware of the 25 foot setback when he pulled the permit for the project. The project plans submitted for the permit reflect the 25 foot setback. Lake County allows contractors to withdraw permits that have already been pulled. Respondent never withdrew the permit for the project. Butler was unable to obtain a final inspection because he failed to file a Notice Of Commencement at the outset of the project. Pyke and Kyler filed the Notice Of Commencement in order to obtain the final inspection. As the contractor of record, it was Respondent's responsibility to ensure that a Notice of Commencement was filed and that the project passed final inspection. While obtaining the information necessary to file the Notice Of Commencement, Pyke and Kyler learned that Butler was unlicensed and uninsured and that Respondent had used his license to pull the permit. When confronted by Pyke, Respondent did not deny knowledge of the project and assured Pyke that the problems with the project would be corrected. Despite Respondent's assurances, the code violations have not been corrected. Nor have the defects in construction been corrected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating: Sections 489.129(1)(c) and 455.227(1)(a); and Sections 489.129(1) (e), (f), (n), and (p). It is further recommended that the Board place Respondent on probation for three years, subject to reasonable conditions, impose an administrative fine of $5,000, and assess costs of $717.50 plus reasonable costs incurred by Petitioner subsequent to the date of this Recommended Order to investigate and prosecute this proceeding to its conclusion. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March 1996.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated at conclusion of hearing to the matters set forth in the following findings of fact. Stipulated Facts The Respondent was the subject of a previous administrative complaint filed by the Petitioner. The previous administrative complaint issued by Petitioner was number 76024. The Respondent did not seek a formal administrative hearing to contest the charges of the previous administrative complaint which consisted of the same fact allegations and statutory violation as set forth in the charges in the instant complaint. The Respondent and the Petitioner reached an accommodation in regard to the charges set forth in the previous administrative complaint. Petitioner entered a final order in that previous case pursuant to stipulation and settlement which imposed sanctions upon the Respondent. Such final order was signed on November 19, 1987, by J. R. Crockett, Chairman of the Construction Industry Licensing Board and was filed with the Board Clerk on November 24, 1987. The administrative complaint in Division of Administrative Hearings case number 87-5604 and Petitioner's case number 82716, the instant case, is included in the settlement of Petitioner's case number 76024. As a result of the previous administrative adjudication of the same cause of action as set forth in the present proceeding, further factual findings in this case are not warranted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that, in view of the parties's stipulation at hearing, a final order be entered 1) finding this administrative complaint, as set forth in Division of Administrative Hearings case number 87-5604 and Petitioner's case number 82716, should have been included in the previous disposition of Petitioner's case number 76024 and 2) dismissing further proceedings in this cause. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 7th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 7th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Sims, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Michael B. Holden, Esquire Litigation Building, Suite 204 633 South Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Donald F. Royal, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RC 0031831. During the times of the alleged violations, the Respondent was the sole qualifying agent for J & J Construction Company (the company.) The principals of the company were the Respondent and a man named James Jimenez. Both men sold jobs for the company and were responsible for overseeing some of the work of the company. The Respondent pulled permits for, and was primarily responsible for, the roofing work contracted by the company. But sometimes, when the company had more than one job going at the same time, the Respondent would be primarily responsible for overseeing one, and Jimenez would be primarily responsible for overseeing the other. The Respondent thought that Jimenez held a license of some kind that enabled him to do some kinds of minor renovation construction. The Respondent restricted his work to roofing and did not mind Jimenez doing some renovation work on the side, separate from the business of the company. But the Respondent understood that Jimenez' "side deals" would be done separately under Jimenez' own license and would not be part of the business of the company. On or about August 14, 1986, Jimenez entered into a contract on behalf of the company to build an addition, remodel and reroof the existing structure and roof the addition of the residence of Ernest and Mercedes Riccio located at 3117 West Henry Avenue, Tampa, Florida. The contract price was $18,999. Jimenez telephoned the Respondent about the job but only told him about the part of the contract that called for the existing roof to be torn off and reroofed. He told the Respondent that the contract price for the job was $3,800. The Respondent pulled a permit for what he thought was the job and started and finished what he thought was the work to be done. The Respondent personally was compensated approximately $700-$800 for his part in the reroofing job. When the Respondent was finished, Jimenez continued with the rest of the contract, which was to include roofing the addition, without telling the Respondent about it. Jimenez did not get very far before a Tampa building inspector happened past and, seeing unfamiliar work in process, inspected the job site. He discovered that the building permit displayed at the site had been altered to expand the work purportedly permitted to include building, in addition to the roofing work for which the Respondent had obtained a permit. Someone other than the Respondent (probably Jimenez although he denied it) altered the permit. The Respondent knew nothing about the contract (other than the reroofing that he did), the alteration of the permit, or the work Jimenez was doing after he left the site. When he discovered the permit violations, the building inspector "red- tagged" the entire job, and work stopped. That was only the beginning of the Riccios' problems. Further investigation revealed that the job would require not only a valid permit but also zoning variances and utility easements. Although the contract had called for the company to obtain all necessary permits, Jimenez and the Riccios agreed that the Riccios would apply for whatever else was necessary in their own names and that Jimenez would assist them. By the time work stopped, the Riccios already had paid the company $12,666 of the total contract price. Nonetheless, when Jimenez' minimal assistance did not resolve the Riccios' problems quickly, Jimenez decided that he already had put too much into the job, and he began to lose interest and make himself scarce. The Riccios finally got their necessary permits on January 26, 1987. They then approached Jimenez about the work to be done under the contract (and the matter of the remaining $6,333 draw). The Riccios and Jimenez agreed that the Riccios would provide the materials and supplies necessary to complete the work and the company would provide the labor. Despite these alternate arrangements, the company did not promptly finish the job. Eventually, the Riccios gave up on Jimenez and in April or May, 1987, began to deal directly with the company's former job superintendent, a man named Ray. To improve their chances of getting the job done (and reduce some of their extra expenses), the Riccios agreed to allow Ray to live in the house free of charge while they were doing the work. The job still did not get finished. Eventually, Mrs. Riccio and some of her relatives finished the job themselves. Even so, the Riccios wound up spending about $20,000, in addition to the $12,666 they had paid the company, to complete the job which the company had contracted to do for $18,999, total. The Respondent was not aware of any of Jimenez' dealings with the Riccios after the Respondent completed his reroofing work. The Respondent assumed that Jimenez had called for a final inspection and that the job had been completed satisfactorily. But in approximately February or March, 1987, the Respondent was contacted by a DPR investigator in connection with the Riccios' complaint against the company. He learned at about that time about Jimenez' other dealings with the Riccios. He also learned that the roof over the addition that had been built had failed inspection. The Respondent eventually corrected the deficiencies, and the roof passed final inspection on August 19, 1987. The Respondent attempts to excuse himself of any wrongdoing, saying that he had a right to delegate the supervision of jobs such as the Riccio job to Jimenez and that he himself was victimized by Jimenez, along with the Riccios. Respondent nonetheless negotiated with Jimenez through the end of the year 1987 in an attempt to come to an agreement to continue to do business together, but the negotiations finally failed. The Respondent was disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board on January 7, 1988, for offenses which occurred during the same time frame in which the Riccio job took place.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Donald F. Royal, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes (1987), and imposing on him an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Donald F. Royal, pro se 8509 North 16 Street Tampa, Florida 33604 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carl F. Doyle, hereinafter referred to as Respondent, is licensed as a certified building contractor holding license number CB C015518 in the State of Florida. At all times material to this action the Respondent was licensed, and his address of record is Palm Harbor, Florida. The Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, was and is the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. Respondent has never been the qualifying agent for Plantara Building Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Plantara. Janet Lee Valente was the qualifying agent for Plantara from December 1986 until October 1987. Respondent is and was the registered agent and director for Plantara at all times material to this action. Respondent negotiated the construction contract between Plantara and Jackie Evans and her daughter, Michelle Renee Evans. Respondent's license number was used to obtain the building permit for the Evans' home. The Evans and Plantara entered a contract to construct a new home in Pinellas County on March 29, 1986. In August 1986, construction of the Evans home began. Mrs. Jackie Evans noted a discrepancy in the plumbing which was corrected prior to pouring the slab. The plumbing discrepancy related to changes in the kitchen and bathroom requested by Mrs. Evans. Mrs. Evans had presented her request for changes to Respondent in March 1986. As construction proceeded, Mrs. Evans noted that her kitchen had a wall where an "island" should be. This was not corrected. A tub was put in the master bathroom and had to be removed because Mrs. Evans had requested a shower. In May of 1987, Mrs. Evans "closed" on the house but submitted to Respondent a list of several items to be repaired or completed. Plantara had access to Mrs. Evans home to complete the job but would often not keep appointments as scheduled. Prior to closing on her home in May 1987, Mrs. Evans had advised Plantara of items she desired to be corrected. After the May 1987 closing on the home, Mrs. Evans wrote Plantara again regarding items to be corrected or finished on her home. The gas dryer vent terminated in the attic, and not through the roof; a leak in the fireplace and the reversal of hot and cold water in the guest bathroom were three of the items to be corrected. Plantara corrected the problem with the water in the guest bath, a code violation, immediately. However, they failed to correct the gas dryer venting violation. As of the date of the hearing, there were numerous items still not corrected or repaired by Plantara. However, Mrs. Evans and Plantara reached a monetary settlement in April 1989 in which Plantara waived its claim of $5,000 under the contract in exchange for the Evans' release from liability. A letter of commitment for FHA financing was not received until December 23, 1986. The home received a certificate of occupancy on February 24, 1987. (T. pg. 20). There were numerous items to be corrected as of the closing date in May 1987 and as of the hearing date there remained items from the "list" which had not been corrected and/or repaired. Larry Wilson, Pinellas County Department of Consumer Affairs, observed leaks in the fireplace, uneven tile in the bathroom shower, closet doors not fitting properly, sloppy painting, bedroom windows not closing properly, siding loose, and patio concrete cracked when he inspected the home in November, 1987. Mr. Wilson stated that Mrs. Evans complaints were legitimate. Mr. Jerry Hicks, an expert in construction practices in Florida, testified that a "punchlist" such as Mrs. Evans list is usually completed within 30 days or sooner after the "closing" The contractor is responsible to complete the punchlist as the contractor is "charged with supervising the work.' Mr. Hicks opined that Respondent should have immediately responded to the problem with the dryer vent. In fact, when Mrs. Evans contacted the subcontractor, the problem was immediately corrected by the subcontractor. This indicates that Respondent had exercised little supervision over the subcontractors. (T. pg. 104, 116). Respondent had from February 1987 (the date of the certificate of occupancy) until May 1987 (the date of the "closing") to correct the punchlist. Respondent was unresponsive to the customer, and was not reasonably timely in completion of the punchlist. Respondent did not supervise the job as industry standards require. Respondent has been previously disciplined twice by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent offered in mitigation that the job was undertaken as a "favor" to the Evans and therefore they should have expected low priority treatment. However, as a mitigation gesture, the Respondent waived his right to receipt of the remaining $5,000 payment from the property owners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(g) and 489.119, Florida Statutes by failing to qualify a firm and that an administrative fine be imposed in the amount of $500. Rule 21E-17.001(a), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by gross negligence and misconduct in the practice of contracting which caused monetary or other harm to licensee's customer and that an administrative fine be imposed in the amount of $1,500, and that his contractor's license be suspended for three (3) months. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 31st day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1166 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,4,15,16,17,18,19 (1st sentence), 20, 22,23,24,25,26,27 (in part), 29 are accepted, except as is irrelevant or subordinate. Paragraph 21, 28 are not supported by the evidence Paragraph 27 (in part is rejected as a conclusion of law. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: Paragraph 1 and 3 accepted and incorporated in findings Paragraph 2 rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 4 and 5 accepted in part as grounds for mitigation. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Carl F. Doyle 5 Stiles Lane Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32301 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The administrative complaint alleges that J. E. Patterson is licensed as a registered plumbing contractor and as a registered air conditioning contractor, and that he committed these violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes: that he did business in a name not included on his license, that he failed to properly update his address with the Board, and that he failed to properly supervise the activity of the firm which undertook construction work under his name. The issue for disposition is whether the violations occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The records of the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) reveal that J. E. Patterson has three active licenses, issued pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, governing contractors: an electrical contractor's license (ER 0010700), a plumbing contractor's license (RF 005243), and an air conditioning contractor's license (RA 0052424). None of these licenses has ever qualified a firm named "Pro-Mech". The addresses on the licenses are Merritt Island and Titusville, Florida, in Brevard County. Bobby J. Hunter, Sr. is an Investigator Specialist II for DPR who has investigated construction industry license complaints for approximately fourteen years. After receiving a complaint from a building official, Mr. Hunter conducted an investigation of Mr. Patterson and a firm called "Pro-Mech". The investigation included a telephone interview and a personal contact with J. E. Patterson. Patterson admitted to Mr. Hunter that he had done contracting business as "Pro- Mech", and that he did not send change of status forms or apply to have the firm qualified because the firm had become insolvent. Patterson did not admit the other violations. No prior disciplinary actions against this licensee were alleged or proven.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: that J.E. Patterson be found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(g) and 489.119, Florida Statutes and that a letter of guidance be issued. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 15th day of November, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 1107 E. Jackson, Suite 104 Tampa, Florida 33602 J. E. Patterson Post Office Box 2505 Umatilla, Florida 32784 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez 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 Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent's license as a certified general contractor should be revoked or suspended, or some other discipline imposed, for the reasons alleged in a multi-count Administrative Complaint. The essential allegations of the Administrative Complaint may be summarized as follows: Count One--failure to properly qualify a company under which Respondent was doing business and acting in a name other than that on his license; Count Two--abandoning a construction project without just cause and willful or deliberate disregard and violation of applicable local building codes; Count Three-- diverting funds received for the completion of a specified construction project when as a result of the diversion the contractor is unable to fulfill the terms of his contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions and stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, and on matters officially recognized, I make the following findings of fact: Admitted and stipulated facts The Respondent is a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C007067. The Respondent's last known address is DeMaria & Sons Construction Company, Inc., 4451 N.E. 16th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334. On July 14, 1982, Respondent, doing business as Big D Construction, contracted with Jolly Libo-on of 312 S.E. 22nd Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to build an addition to Libo- on's house for a contract price of $17,500.00. At all times material herein, Respondent qualified DeMaria & Sons Construction Company, Inc. At no time did Respondent properly qualify, nor did any licensed contractor properly qualify, Big D Construction. The Respondent began work on Libo-on's house on August 23, 1982, and continued construction until at least the last week of September of 1982. Libo-on has paid the Respondent $13,500.00 as called for by their contract. The following subcontractors or suppliers filed claims of lien against Libo-on's property because of Respondent's failure to pay them for services or supplies: Minute Men Associates, Inc. $1,752.47 Apachee Roofing 885.00 Meekins, Inc. 439.53 Greenlee Plumbing Service, Inc. 795.00 Total liens $3,862.00 7. The Respondent has not satisfied the liens filed against Libo-on's property, but the liens were later satisfied by Libo- on. Other relevant facts established by the evidence of record After September 27, 1982, the only work performed by or on behalf of the Respondent at the Libo-on residence was by employee Shawn Brannigan on November 16, 1982, and by employee Bob Walters on November 21, 1982. The work performed by Brannigan and Walters in November was de minimis in nature and did not significantly advance the completion of the contract. From September 27 through November 25, 1982, Libo-on called the Respondent by telephone on a daily basis to inquire about why no work was being done on the project. The Respondent would promise that someone would come the next day, but with the exception of the de minimis efforts on November 16 and 21, no work was done on the project after September 27, 1982, by or on behalf of the Respondent. Libo-on quit trying to make telephone calls to the Respondent after the Respondent told Libo-on on the telephone that he had reached a wrong number. The Respondent's services were terminated on December 7, 1982, via letter from Libo-on's attorney, Linn Brett. At no time prior to the termination of his services did the Respondent inform the Libo-ons that he could not do any more work nor did the Libo-ons dismiss him from the work at any earlier date. At the time Respondent's services were terminated, the addition was approximately 75 per cent completed. In addition to the subcontractors and suppliers listed in paragraph 6 above, the Respondent also failed to pay the sum of $2,393.00 which was due to International Drywall Systems, a subcontractor who provided services and supplies on the Libo-on project. Abandonment of a construction project constitutes a violation of Broward County Ordinance 78-9, Section 9-14(b)(8). Libo-on paid the lienors $3,441.00 in satisfaction of the liens. Libo-on contracted with Robert Hobart to finish the construction, at an additional cost of $4,000.00. Libo-on paid $2,200.00 for lawyers fees, $3,441.00 for liens, and $4,000.00 to Mr. Hobart. These costs minus the $4,000.00 remaining under the Respondent's contract resulted in Libo-on expending $5,641.00 above the original contract price. Of the $13,500.00 which was paid to him by Libo-on, the Respondent can establish that he spent only approximately $9,000.00 on the project. The Respondent was unable to complete the project because he did not have on hand the money to pay the subcontractors and suppliers.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order suspending the Respondent's license for a period of five years and providing further that the suspension will be reduced to one year upon the Respondent's demonstrating to the Board that he has made restitution to Libo-on in the amount of $5,641.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 30th day of October, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-4450 The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by both parties to this case. Rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: The findings of fact included in this Recommended Order include the substance of all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner with certain minor modifications and additions in the interest of clarity and accuracy. Rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: The unnumbered paragraphs of the Respondent's letter of October 22, 1985, have comments, arguments, legal conclusions, and factual assertions all interspersed. Nothing in the letter constitutes a proposed finding of fact per se. Were it not for the fact that the Respondent is unrepresented by counsel, I would decline to attempt to address the issues raised in the Respondent's letter of October 22, 1985, due to both its tardiness and its failure to separately state proposed findings and proposed conclusions. Nevertheless, giving the Respondent more process than is perhaps his due, I have specifically ruled on each of the contentions which relates to factual matters and have also attempted to address his legal contentions. In the rulings below I have referred to the unnumbered paragraphs in the order in which they appear on each page of the letter. Page one, first paragraph: No ruling required. Page one, second paragraph: No ruling required. Page one, third paragraph: Respondent's version of the facts on this issue is rejected for several reasons, including the following: (1) competent substantial evidence supports the finding that from September 27 until December 7, 1982, only "token" or "de minimis" work was performed on the Libo-on project, and (2) the Respondent did not offer into evidence the documentation mentioned in this paragraph. Page one, fourth paragraph: There is competent substantial evidence for the Petitioner's version of the finding addressed by this paragraph. The Libo- on testimony on this subject is not hearsay. Page one, fifth paragraph: To the extent that in this paragraph the Respondent attempts to dispute the fact that he abandoned the Libo-on project, such a finding is rejected because the persuasive competent substantial evidence compels an opposite finding. Page one, sixth paragraph: With regard to the issue of the percentage of completion of the project at the time the Respondent abandoned it, there is conflicting evidence. The more persuasive evidence is that the project was approximately 75 percent completed. Page one, seventh paragraph (which also continues at top of page two): This paragraph contains a mixture of legal and factual contentions. With regard to the factual contentions it is sufficient to note that the greater weight of the evidence supports a finding that the amount paid to Hobart to finish the work on the Libo-on project was a reasonable amount because, in fact, it was exactly the same amount that remained to be paid to the Respondent on his unfinished contract. No one is trying to charge the Respondent for additional work that was not in his contract. The amount to which the Libo-ons are entitled in restitution is the sum of their expenses incurred for legal fees and for obtaining satisfaction of liens placed against their property because of the Respondent's failure to pay subcontractors and suppliers. Page two, first full paragraph: The Respondent's contentions in this paragraph are contrary to the persuasive competent substantial evidence. These contentions are also contrary to Respondent's admission at hearing that he could account for only approximately $9,000.00 of the $13,500.00 he was paid by the Libo-ons. Page two, second full paragraph: This paragraph requires no comment other than to note that there is a significant difference between imposing a fine and providing for a reduced suspension in the event of restitution. Page two, third full paragraph: Contrary to the Respondent's assertion, there is persuasive competent substantial evidence to establish the amount of the financial injury suffered by the Libo-ons as a result of the Respondent's misconduct. Page two, last paragraph: No ruling required. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Vincent A. DeMaria 4451 N.E. 16th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct, as is more Particularly alleged in an Administrative Complaint dated November 26, 1986, and which is more particularly set forth hereinafter in detail, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a professional engineer, having been issued License No. PE0014862. Philip Clark contracted with Gilbert Simm, the owner of Quality Foods, Inc., to prepare architectural plans depicting the interior finishing of the food processing area to be contained in an existing warehouse owned by Simm. Pursuant to his contract with Simm, Clark hired Respondent to prepare the mechanical-design portion of the plans. Respondent prepared said mechanical-design plans consisting of sheet M- 1 and affixed his seal and name thereto. Bernard Amangual, general contractor, applied for a building permit to commence construction of the food processing area based on the plans submitted by Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 3) The building permit was rejected by the Metropolitan Dade Building Department on January 27, 1986. John Ariton, mechanical plans examiner for Dade County, prepared a mechanical processing comment sheet after reviewing Respondent's drawings which reflected several mechanical-design elements depicted by Respondent which failed to comply with the South Florida Building Code. Ariton further completed a design criteria sheet upon review of Respondent's plans. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5) Dade County enforces the South Florida Building Code, which has adopted the requirements and standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Petitioner retained the services of Berton Hufsey, received as an expert herein in the field of mechanical engineering, to examine Respondent's plans prior to the hearing and to file a report which was done contemporaneous with said examination outlining noted deficiencies in Respondent's design, several of which were checked on the Building Department's mechanical processing comment sheet. Among denoted deficiencies, Respondent's plans failed to provide for sufficient exhaust air for the hood as the capacity of the exhaust air shown on the mechanical plans was 7200 cfm and the Code requirement is 7500 cfm. Respondent failed to recite the dimensions of the cooking equipment under the hood on the mechanical drawing. Respondent only provided for one exhaust tap in the 15 foot hood design in violation of the South Florida Building Code, which required that there be one tap for every eight (8) feet. Respondent failed to note in his plans the description or indication of the wall adjacent to the hood, or of the roof above the hood, to indicate it was either of combustible material or whether or not the 18-inch required clearance had been satisfied. Respondent failed to provide any reference to the size of sheet metal ductwork that goes from the hood to the exhaust fan, which is in violation of the South Florida Building Code. When the plans were submitted by Respondent and were presented to the Building Department, there were no energy calculations made. The automatic extinguisher system shown on the mechanical plans as submitted by Respondent did not provide for an automatic means to ensure the shutdown of fuel or power upon system activation. The gas riser did not indicate an automatic shut-off valve to stop the flow of gas in the event of fire as is required by the South Florida Building Code. An engineer who affixes his seal and name to plans thereby indicates that the plans are complete and ready for submission. An engineer is required to date all plans bearing his seal and signature. Respondent acknowledges that he provided the wrong hood size in the mechanical drawings. He also acknowledged that the fire extinguisher system usually provides for a shut-off valve in the mechanical drawings, which was not provided. Aside therefrom, Respondent considered the other deficiencies noted above were merely technical deficiencies which he should have been afforded an opportunity to complete. In this regard, Respondent contends that the engineer, Philip Clark, did not give him the details to make the necessary energy calculations or details about various equipment items, and therefore, it was impossible for him to make the necessary calculations and provide the required details.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: Respondent pay an administrative fine of $1,000. Respondent's license be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months, during which time Respondent will be required to complete a study guide in a course in professionalism and ethics as required by Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 2nd day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0034 Respondent's memoranda is in the form of a summary of the testimony which was considered by me in preparation of the Recommended Order. However, the following responses are provided to the summation given by Respondent. Item 3 Rejected as irrelevant to a determination of the issues posed. Items 4 and 5: Rejected based on other credible evidence indicating that the drawing does not contain the requisite sign, seal and date as is required by statute and rules and that there were numerous deficiencies as referred to by expert witness Berton Hufsey. Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: FOF 23 Rejected as argument or a conclusion. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Paul A. Poliquin 324 West Rivo Alto Drive Miami, Florida 33139 Honorable Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged, in conjunction with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, with the responsibility for prosecuting Administrative Complaints pursuant to chapters 455 and 489, and the rules promulgated thereunder. In September, 1983, license number CR C012950 was issued to Respondent, David A. Taylor, as the qualifying agent for Energywise Homes, Inc., 3305 S.W. 1st Court, Deerfield Beach, FL 33441. License number CR C01295p remained in effect until June 30, 1987. License number CR C012950 was delinquent and invalid from July, 1987, through May 10, 1988. In July, 1987, license number CR C012950 was placed on a delinquent status for non-renewal and considered invalid. On April 19, 1988, Respondent applied for renewal and reinstatement of license number CR C012950. Respondent's application for renewal and reinstatement was approved May 11, 1989. At that time, license number CR C012950 was changed from a qualifying business to an individual license. In April, 1988, Respondent applied to the City of Sebastian, Florida Construction Board (the "City") for an occupational license in order to obtain building permits for jobs he had contracted in that jurisdiction. License number CR C012950 was delinquent and invalid at the time Respondent applied to the City for an occupational license and permits. Respondent presented an altered license to Ms. Kathryn Nappi, the person responsible for issuing occupational licenses for the City in April, 1988, for the purpose of obtaining building permits from the City. The typeface on the license presented by Respondent to Ms. Nappi does not match either that used on the bottom portion of the same license or the copy of the licenses admitted as Respondent's Exhibit 1. Further, the date used on the altered license is not a date normally used by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Finally, the license presented by Respondent to Ms. Nappi indicated the license was held by Respondent individually rather than as qualifying agent for Energywise Homes, Inc. The testimony of the witnesses for Petitioner was consistent and credible. The procedures followed by Ms. Nappi and her supervisor, Mr. Bruce Cooper, Director of Community Development and Building Official for the City of Sebastian, were customary procedures followed in the ordinary course of their business. Neither witness had any discernible motive for fabricating the events to which they testified. Respondent presented the altered license to Ms. Nappi sometime in April, 1988, for the purpose of obtaining building permits for the five homes to be constructed in the City. Ms. Nappi noticed that the type on the top of the license submitted by Respondent did not match the bottom portion. She brought the discrepancy to the attention of Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper confirmed with the Department of Professional Regulation that the license submitted to Ms. Nappi by Respondent had been altered. Mr. Cooper set up a meeting between himself, Respondent, and two detectives to ascertain Respondent's position concerning the altered license. Mr. Cooper did not believe Respondent's position and placed the matter on the agenda for the May 3, 1988, meeting of the Sebastian Construction Board (the "Board") 3/ Respondent and the owner of the five homes for which permits were being sought appeared at the May 3, 1988, meeting of the Board. The Board voted to approve the building permits subject to the issuance of a valid license by the Department of Professional Regulation. The owner requested issuance of the permits because delay was causing his investment to dwindle. The Board also considered the fact that the properties were becoming an eyesore in the City. The Board voted to approve the permits, subject to Respondent obtaining a valid license, and leave the issue of the altered license to the Department of Professional Regulation. Respondent's testimony that he did not present an altered license for the purpose of obtaining building permits from the City, and that he had never previously seen the altered license, is rejected as not credible. Such testimony is inconsistent with statements by Respondent to Mr. Cooper and at the May 3, 1988, meeting of the Board, which were admitted in evidence as exceptions to hearsay under Section 90.8C3(18). Respondent's testimony is also inconsistent with the greater weight of evidence. Financial pressures caused by previous delays in obtaining permits provided a motive for Respondent to present an altered license to obtain building permits for the five homes to be constructed in the City. Previous attempts by others to obtain building permits for five homes to be constructed in the City had been unsuccessful. Respondent made several further attempts to obtain building permits for the five homes to be constructed in the City. The delays in obtaining the permits had caused the investment of the owner of the homes to dwindle. Furthermore, the homes were becoming an eyesore for the City. Respondent committed an act of fraud, deceit, and misconduct in April, 1988, when Respondent intentionally presented an altered license to Ms. Nappi to obtain building permits for the five homes to be constructed in the City. No evidence has been presented to support a finding that Respondent altered the license presented to Ms. Nappi. However, Respondent knew or should have known that the license submitted by him had been altered, and Respondent submitted the altered license for the purpose of obtaining the needed building permits. Even without the requisite intent for fraud, deceit, and misconduct, Respondent is not exonerated. Inadvertently presenting an altered license to Ms. Nappi in April, 1988, at a time when Respondent knew his license was delinquent and invalid constitutes gross negligence and incompetence in the practice of contracting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of fraud, deceit, gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m). Florida Administrative Code Rule 21E-17.001 provides in relevant part: "The following guidelines Shall be used in disciplinary cases, absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances and subject to the other provisions of this Chapter. (emphasis added) * * * (19) 489.129(1)(m): Gross negligence, incompetence, and/or misconduct, fraud or deceit. (a) Causing no monetary harm to licensee's customer, and no physical harm to any person. First violation, $250 to $750 fine; repeat violation, $1,000 to $1,500 fine and 3 to 9 month suspension. Florida Administrative Code Rule 21E-17.002, describes aggravating and mitigating circumstances which may be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed in a particular proceeding. Petitioner produced no evidence of any aggravating circumstances other than the alleged violations of Sections 489.113 and 489.115. There was no evidence of monetary or other damage to the licensee's customer, actual job site violations, repetitive offenses, the number of complaints filed against Respondent, or actual damage to the licensee's customer. See Fla. Admin. Code Rule 21E-17.002(1),(2),(s),(6), and (8). Considering the absence of any aggravating factors, the length of time Respondent has practiced contracting without any complaint, the de minimis danger to the public, and the fact that the Board approved the permits sought by Respondent because of the beneficial effect the permits would have on the owner and the City, it is recommended that Respondent be fined $250. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of February, 1990. DANIEL MANRY 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 26th day of February, 1990.
