The Issue Whether Jose Ramone Garcia obtained a building permit for the purpose of aiding an uncertified or unregistered person to evade the provisions of Part 2, Chapter 468, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Jose Ramone Garcia holds a license as a general contractor issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and is licensed as doing business as Gabros Construction. Jose Ramone Garcia, on or about April 26, 1974, obtained a building permit No. 74-1006 issued by Collier County Building Department to build a home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida. The home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida, was built by Roger Dulaney, an unlicensed person, who had contracted verbally to build said home with Mr. William E. Young, the owner of the real property. Jose Ramone Garcia obtained the building permit No. 74-1006 with money given to him by Roger Dulaney, but Jose Ramone Garcia did not receive any compensation for his assistance to Roger Dulaney. Jose Ramone Garcia did not contract with William E. Young to build the home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida. Jose Ramone Garcia did not contract with any of the subcontractors or materialmen for services or goods used in the construction of the home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida. Jose Ramone Garcia was frequently at the construction site at 378 Seabee Avenue and did oversee the construction which Dulaney directed. Garcia did insure that all construction work done was in accordance with the specifications and plans and the building code of Collier County. All work on the home at 378 Seabee Avenue was inspected and approved by the building authorities of Collier County. With several minor adjustments, the construction was acceptable to the owners. The major problem involved with the house constructed at 378 Seabee Avenue involved the contract price of the home arrived at between Dulaney and Young. Garcia did not negotiate the contract of the construction of the house at 378 Seabee Avenue and had no knowledge of the contract price. The dispute between Dulaney and Young resulted in court action between these parties which resulted in a judgment by the court in the favor of Dulaney. Jose Ramone Garcia has been unable to obtain a building permit as a contractor in Collier County since the filing of the Administrative Complaint in January, 1976. Garcia currently resides in Collier County.
Recommendation Because the licensing privilege of Garcia has already been effectively suspended for 14 months, which is a substantial period of suspension, the Hearing Officer does not feel that a further suspension would be of any benefit. The Hearing Officer would recommend that a civil penalty of $500 be assessed against Garcia based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire Jacobs, Sinoff, Edwards, Alford & Burgess Post Office Drawer I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 Jose Ramone Garcia 9341 S. W. 38th Street Miami, Florida J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”) preliminary award of funding to University Station I, LLC (“University Station”), was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to Florida Housing’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the record as a whole, the stipulated facts, and matters subject to official recognition, the following Findings of Fact are made: Findings on Florida Housing and the RFA Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes, and promotes public welfare by administering the financing of affordable housing in Florida. Section 420.5099 designates Florida Housing as the State of Florida’s housing credit agency within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, Florida Housing is responsible for establishing procedures for allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. Florida Housing allocates housing credits and other funding via requests for proposals or other competitive solicitation methods identified in section 420.507(48). Florida Housing initiated the instant competitive solicitation by issuing the RFA on October 15, 2020, and anticipates awarding up to an estimated $88,959,045.00 in State Apartment Incentive Loan (“SAIL”)2 financing. The RFA set forth a process by which applications would be scored based, in part, on eligibility items. Only applications satisfying all of the eligibility items were eligible for funding and considered for selection. 2 Marissa Button, the Director of Multifamily Programs at Florida Housing, testified that the SAIL program finances the development of multifamily, affordable rental housing. The Florida Legislature traditionally appropriates money for the SAIL program via the State Housing Trust Fund. Site Control was an eligibility item because Florida Housing wants assurances that applicants selected for funding will be able to actually use the development sites.3 Applicants satisfy the Site Control requirement by providing a properly completed and executed Florida Housing Site Control Certification Form (“the Site Control Form”). In order for the Site Control Form to be considered complete, an applicant had to attach documentation demonstrating that it: (a) was a party to an eligible contract or lease; or (b) owned the property in question. The RFA set forth specific requirements for contracts and leases used for demonstrating site control. For example, a contract had to satisfy all of the following conditions: It must have a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than May 31, 2021. It must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; The Applicant must be the buyer unless there is an assignment of the eligible contract, signed by the assignor and the assignee, which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant; and The owner of the subject property must be the seller, or is a party to one or more intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or 3 Ms. Button explained that Site Control “is a component of how the applicant demonstrates its ability to proceed with the proposed development. And essentially it is the – the way that we require them to demonstrate they have control over the proposed development site.” As for why Site Control is important, Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing wants “to be assured if the – the applicant is successful in its request for funding, that the – they will be able to actually use the development site.” conveyances between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to sell the property to the seller. Any intermediate contract must meet the criteria for an eligible contract in (a) and (b) above. The language quoted above indicates that the RFA was referring to a sales contract when it used the term “contract.” If an applicant used a lease to satisfy the Site Control requirement, then the RFA provided the following: (3) Lease – The lease must have an unexpired term of at least 50 years after the Application Deadline and the lessee must be the Applicant. The owner of the subject property must be a party to the lease, or a party to one or more intermediate leases, subleases, agreements, or assignments, between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to lease the property for at least 50 years to the lessee. Marissa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs, testified that the RFA did not require a lease to have a commencement date. The RFA required that Site Control documentation for leases “include all relevant intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, conveyances, intermediate leases, and subleases. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites.” Ms. Button provided the following testimony about this requirement: A: Florida Housing includes the requirements for that documentation to – to essentially acknowledge that there are circumstances where there may be an intermediate contract or agreement that would demonstrate one of the criteria for those different types of site control and the requirements that we want to see that -- that chain back to the requirement itself. * * * Q: So Florida Housing considers this term to broadly include all different types of potential contract agreements, et cetera; correct? A: Yes. Q: Could you give me an example of an intermediate contract or agreement? A: Yes. An intermediate contract or agreement may be where – with regard to the [ ] contract, the terms require an owner of the subject property to be a seller of the subject property. And so there may be an applicant that has a contract with the seller of the property. And that seller might not be the actual owner; so there may be an intermediate contract that we need to see between the seller to the buyer and the actual owner of the subject property. Q: And that situation that you just described, that happened in the past few years; correct? A: I can think of one example where that happened, yes. Q: Okay. And in that case Florida Housing agreed that the intermediate agreement was necessary to include with the site documentation; correct? A: Florida Housing reviewed – yes. That – Florida Housing’s position was there was an intermediate agreement necessary because the site control documentation provided did not include the owner of the subject property. As for Florida Housing’s review of Site Control documentation, the RFA provided as follows: Note: [Florida Housing] will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation. During scoring, [Florida Housing] will rely on the properly executed Site Control Certification form to determine whether an Applicant has met the requirement of this RFA to demonstrate site control. [Florida Housing] has no authority to, and will not, evaluate the validity or enforceability of any eligible site control documentation that is attached to the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process. During credit underwriting, if it is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, [Florida Housing] may rescind the award. When questioned about Florida Housing’s review of Site Control documentation, Ms. Button offered the following testimony: Q: If you look at the next page, Page 48, at the end of Subsection A there’s a note. It says Florida Housing will not review the site control during the scoring process. It will not evaluate the authority or enforceability of such documentation; correct? A: Yes. Q: But even though Florida Housing does not review the site documentation during scoring, it will review the documentation during the bid protest; correct? A: Yes as it relates to the RFA requirements. * * * Q: If the documents attached to a site control documentation [do] not meet the RFA criteria, then that site control certification form would be incorrect; right? A: Yes. Q: And the applicant would be found ineligible; correct? A: Yes. The RFA and Ms. Button’s testimony indicate that Florida Housing intended, under most circumstances, to accept the representations set forth in an applicant’s Site Control documentation during the scoring process. In other words, Florida Housing did not go behind the Site Control documentation to verify the representations therein. The terms of the RFA were not challenged. Stipulated Facts Pertaining to Certain Parties Douglas Gardens and Florida Housing agree that Douglas Gardens’ application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. Quiet Meadows and Florida Housing agree that Quiet Meadows’ application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. MHP and Florida Housing agree that MHP’s Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA.4 MHP, Quiet Meadows, and Douglas Gardens agree that Fulham Terrace’s application remains eligible for funding via the RFA. The Willows and Florida Housing agree that the Willows Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. The Willows agrees that the HTG Astoria Application is eligible for funding via the RFA. 4 MHP, Florida Housing, Quiet Meadows, Douglas Gardens, and Fulham Terrace entered into a Settlement Agreement and Stipulation on March 26, 2021, that was entered into evidence as Fern Grove Exhibit 1. SoMi Parc, Vista, and Florida Housing agree that the SoMi Parc Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. SoMi Parc has accepted an invitation to enter credit underwriting for the same Development in RFA 2020-203 and thus cannot be funding via the RFA. Findings Regarding the Applications of University Station and Vista Florida Housing received 90 applications in response to the RFA. Those applications were processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked pursuant to the terms of the RFA. On January 22, 2021, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 17 applicants, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. University Station was one of the 17 successful applicants, and University Station’s Site Control documentation included: (a) a Ground Lease Agreement between the City of Hollywood, Florida (“the City”), and University Station (“the University Station I Lease”); (b) a Ground Lease Agreement between the City and University Station II, LTD (“the University Station II Lease”); and (c) an Assignment of Ground Lease Agreement assigning University Station II, LTD’s interests in the Ground Lease Agreement between the City and University Station II, LTD to University Station.5 The University Station I Lease described its terms as follows: This lease shall be effective as of the Effective Date, but the term shall commence on the Commencement Date and expire at 11:59 p.m. on the seventy-fifth (75th) anniversary of the Commencement Date (the “Term”), unless this lease is terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions contained herein. For purposes of this lease, the “Commencement Date” shall be the closing date of Tenant’s construction financing for the development of the Phase I Project (the “Construction Financing”), but in no event later 5 The Assignment of Ground Lease Agreement between University Station and University Station II was a relevant intermediate document for demonstrating Site Control. than June 30, 2022. Tenant’s right to take physical possession of the Leased Premises shall begin on the Commencement Date. The University Station II Lease between the City and University Station II described its terms as follows: This lease shall be effective as of the Effective Date, but the term shall commence on the Commencement Date and expire at 11:59 p.m. on the seventy-fifth (75th) anniversary of the Commencement Date (the “Term”), unless this lease is terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions contained herein. For purposes of this Lease, the “Commencement Date” shall be the later of the closing date of Tenant’s construction loan for the development of the Project (the “Construction Loan”) and the termination of the lease of the premises to Barry University, but in no event later than June 30, 2023. Tenant’s right to take physical possession of the Leased Premises shall begin on the Commencement Date. Landlord and Tenant acknowledge that the leased premises are currently improved with an educational facility and adjacent ground parking that is leased to Barry University through November 23, 2021 and the Landlord may enter into an additional one-year extension of the lease to Barry University at Landlord’s sole discretion. Until the Commencement Date, Landlord, or its tenant, shall be solely responsible for the operation and maintenance of the leased premises and any uses on the Leased Premises. University Station’s proposed Development site consists of five Scattered Sites. Barry University currently leases a building and parking spaces located on the Scattered Site described as latitude and longitude coordinates of 26.014703, -80.148572 in Question 5.d.2 of the University Station Application. This is the site described in the University Station II Lease. The City and Barry University, Inc., are the parties to the Barry University Lease (“the Barry University Lease”). The Barry University Lease was executed on May 23, 2011, with a term of 10 and one-half years, which would expire on approximately November 23, 2021. With regard to its term, the Barry University Lease states that “[t]he term of this lease shall be for ten and one-half (10 ½) years commencing upon the execution of this lease. The parties will have the mutual option to renew this lease subject to City Commission and the Lessee’s Board of Directors approval.” A copy of the Barry University Lease was not included in University Station’s application. In contrast to the statement in the University Station II Lease that the Barry University Lease could be extended by “an additional one-year extension” at the City’s “sole discretion,” the Barry University Lease simply says that the parties have a “mutual option to renew” with no mention of a particular term. Ms. Button provided the following testimony regarding the Barry University Lease: Q: And you are aware that University Station did not submit the Barry University lease as part of its site control documentation; correct? A: Yes. Q: And does the existence of that Barry University lease change your position on whether University Station met the requirements in the RFA for a lease? A: No. Q: And why not? A: Because the documents submitted with the application meet the terms of the RFA for a lease site control documentation. Q: Did the existence of the Barry University lease impact whether or not the University Station site control documentation met the requirements for a lease? A: No. Q: As Florida Housing’s corporate representative, what is your position regarding University Station’s application? A: It is eligible for funding. Vista also applied for funding from the RFA. Florida Housing determined that Vista was eligible for funding, but Florida Housing did not preliminarily select Vista for funding. If University Station is deemed ineligible for funding, then Vista will be selected for funding subject to the successful completion of credit underwriting. Ultimate Findings Vista has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that Florida Housing’s proposed award to University Station was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Also, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that: (a) Florida Housing’s proposed action is not contrary to the RFA’s terms; and that (b) University Station will have control over the site in question. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the University Station Lease I Lease, the University Stations II Lease, and the assignment of University Station II’s interest to University Station collectively satisfied the RFA’s requirements because: (a) there is unexpired term of at least 50 years after the application deadline; (b) University Station, i.e., the lessee, was the applicant for funding; and (c) the City, as the owner of the subject property, was a party to the lease. Upon considering Florida Housing’s preliminary approval of University Station’s application without the benefit of reviewing the Barry University Lease, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Florida Housing was not clearly erroneous when it determined that the Barry University Lease was not a relevant intermediate lease within the meaning of the RFA. The University Station II Lease between the City and University Station II requires the lease to begin no later than June 30, 2023. Also, the City and University Station II acknowledge that Barry University’s Lease runs through November 23, 2021, and they agree that the City may extend Barry University’s lease by “an additional one-year.” Accordingly, the Barry University Lease will end prior to June 30, 2023, and University Station will have site control no later than that date. In other words, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that University Station has control over the site in question. The analysis set forth above does not change if one considers the Barry University Lease.6 Even though the Barry University Lease does not limit a renewal to one year, the lease cannot be renewed without the City’s assent, and the City agreed in the University Station II Lease that any renewal would not exceed one year. Therefore, even if one considers the terms of the Barry University Lease, the greater weight of the evidence does not demonstrate that it is a relevant intermediate document that was required to be included with University Station’s application. Again, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that University Station has control over the site in question. 6 As will be explained in more detail in the Conclusions of Law below, “[n]ew evidence cannot be offered to amend or supplement a party’s response or application. § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. However, new evidence may be offered in a competitive protest proceeding to prove that there was an error in another party’s application. Intercontinental Props., supra.” Heritage at Pompano Housing Partners, Ltd. v. Fla. Housing Fin. Corp., Case No. 14-1361BID, ¶ 116 (Fla. DOAH June 10, 2014; Fla. Hous. Fin. Corp. June 13, 2014).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: awarding funding to University Station I, LLC, via Request for Application 2020-205 subject to credit underwriting; and (b) finding that the applications submitted by Douglas Gardens IV, Ltd., MHP FL VIII, LLLP, Quiet Meadows, Ltd, RST The Willows, LP, and Residences at SoMi Parc, LLC are ineligible for funding via Request for Application 2020-205. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marc Ito, Esquire Parker Hudson Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2021. Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 3-231 1400 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields P.A. Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley McMullen 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William D. Hall, Esquire Dean Mead Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John L. Wharton, Esquire Dean Mead and Dunbar Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Brittany Adams Long, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 820 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel Ryan Russell, Esquire Dean Mead Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Wilmon Ray Stevenson was licensed as a registered building contractor in the state of Florida, holding license numbers RB 0035005 and RB A035005. License number RB 0035005 was issued on an active status qualifying an Individual in March 1987 and is still in effect. License number RB 0035005 replaced license number RR 0035005 issued in December, 1980. License number RB A035005 was issued on an active status qualifying Yankee Construction, Inc. d/b/a Olympic Homes of Citrus County (Olympic) in June 1987 and replacing license number RR A035005 issued in August 1981. In October, 1988 Respondent submitted a change of status application which was not acted upon by Petitioner until February, 1989 when it was deleted. However, Petitioner's file (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, page 2) indicates the license was in effect only until October, 1988. The Marion County Building Department was advised of this status change in September, 1988. Findings As To Case No. 90-1637 On April 16, 1988, Frank and Margaret Orkwis entered into a contract with Olympic to construct a home for $37,900 which was later modified, increasing the contract price to $39,363.00. On July 26, 1988 a permit for the Orkwis job was obtained from the Marion County Building Department in accordance with the Respondent's letter dated January 25, 1985 authorizing certain individuals to "pull" permits on his license. There was a total of $27,583.20 paid to Olympic on the Orkwis contract which included $27,483.20 paid by draw schedules and $100.00 as a down payment. Olympic stopped work on the Orkwis home sometime around November 27, 1988 and failed to complete the work under the contract. Olympic gave no notice to Orkwis that it intended to terminate the work on the Orkwis job. In fact, Olympic kept putting Mrs. Orkwis off about completing the job until sometime in late January, 1989 or early February, 1989 when she decided to get a permit and complete construction. Olympic terminated the Orkwis job without just cause. The following liens were recorded against the Orkwis property for the failure of Olympic to timely pay for materials and labor furnished to Olympic for the Orkwis's job in accordance with Orkwis contract: (a) Florida A/C Sales and Services, Inc., filed December 13, 1988 and; (b) Florida Forest Products, Inc. filed December 15, 1988. The labor and materials had been furnished between October 24, 1988 and November 22, 1988. Olympic was contacted by Mrs. Orkwis concerning the liens, with no response. However there was insufficient evidence to establish that the liens had not been removed from the property, by payment or bond, within 30 days after the date of such liens. Sometime in early 1989, Mrs. Orkwis obtained a permit and she and her husband completed the home. Although Mr. Orkwis had obtained an estimate of $27,050.00 from a contractor to complete the home, she and her husband invested 466.5 hours of their time and $10,340.00 for materials to complete the home. In addition to the material, a reasonable amount for labor to complete the home would be $10,000.00. Findings As To Case No. 90-1889 John J. and Josephine Grillo and Madeline Chapman entered into a contract with Olympic for construction of a home on June 11, 1987. A permit was obtained for the Grillo/Chapman home under Respondent's license. The Grillo/Chapman home was completed and a certificate of occupancy issued January 13, 1989. Olympic was paid in full under the contract. Before the expiration of the one-year warranty under the contract, Olympic was advised of certain problems with the construction which Olympic attempted to correct. It is unclear whether the problems were satisfactorily corrected by Olympic but it appears that the only complaint not resolved was a water stain on the carpet that was the result of water seeping in under a door. Respondent was not aware of these problems until after the expiration of the one-year warranty and upon learning of the problems, commented that he was not obligated since the warranty had expired. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the problems were not corrected in accordance with contract. Findings As To Case No. 90-1890 Veronica McPherson entered into a contract with Olympic on March 1, 1989 to construct a home for the contract price of $36,450.00 which was later modified increasing the contract price to $37,775.00. All permits were obtained under the Respondent's license pursuant to a letter dated January 15, 1985 authorizing certain individuals to "pull" permits under Respondent's license. McPherson paid $26,442.50 to Olympic pursuant to a draw schedule in the contract as the home was being constructed. Additionally, McPherson paid a $100.00 down payment. All work performed by Olympic pursuant to the McPherson contract was prior to November 22, 1988. The exact date of termination of work is uncertain. Olympic notified McPherson that it had terminated work and would not complete construction of the home. The exact date of this notification is uncertain. There is no evidence that notice was not given within 90 after termination of work. Olympic terminated work without just cause. McPherson paid a roofing contractor $998.00 to complete the roof on her unfinished home in order to protect the interior. McPherson was financially unable to complete construction of the home. A reasonable estimate to complete construction of the McPherson home at the time work ceased would be $20,000.00. On December 15, 1988 Florida Forest Products, Inc. recorded a lien on December 15, 1988 against the McPherson property for building materials furnished to the McPherson job on order of Olympic on October 24, 1988 for construction of the home pursuant to the McPherson contract in the amount of $1,450.08. There was insufficient evidence to establish that this lien had not been removed from the McPherson property, by payment or bond, within 30 days after the date of such lien. There were three other claims of liens for labor and materials furnished to the McPherson job on order of Olympic between October 19, 1988 and December 2, 1988 for construction for the home pursuant to the McPherson contract as follows: (a) Florida A/C Sales and Services, Inc. dated December 8, 1988 for $1,059.00; (b) Masons Concrete of Crystal River dated December 14, 1988 for $354.97 and (c) Panning Lumber Company, a Division of Wheeler Consolidated, Inc. for $2,284.13. There is no evidence that any of the above liens were ever recorded against the McPherson property. Likewise, there is no evidence to establish that these liens had not been removed from the McPherson property, by payment or bond, within 30 days after the date of such lien, if in fact they were recorded. General Findings Respondent was advised by Larry Vitt in February, 1988 that Olympic was having financial problems. Respondent never supervised the financial aspects of Olympic. Respondent did not participate in the contract process or supervision of the construction of homes contracted to be built by Olympic. More specifically, he did not participate in the contract process or the supervision of the construction of the Orkwis, McPherson or Grillo/Chapman homes. Respondent's main purpose in being involved with Olympic was to use his license to qualify Olympic and to contract all of Olympic's concrete block work. In March, 1989 Respondent advised the Marion County Building Department that no one was authorized to "pull" permits under his license. However, at no time did Respondent withdraw the permits for the Orkwis and McPherson jobs that had been issued under his license. The record is clear that Respondent did not understand his relationship with Olympic nor did he understand the responsibility he incurred when he used his license to qualify Olympic. However, his inexperience or ignorance in this regard does not relieve him of his responsibility to those whose homes were built or not completely built pursuant to a permit issued under his license.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the demeanor of the witnesses and the disciplinary guidelines set out in Chapter 21E-17, Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(k) and (m), Florida Statutes, and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $2,500.00. It is further Recommended that Counts I and II for the Administrative Complaint in Case Nos. 90-1637, 90-1889, and 90-1890 be Dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-1637 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(20, Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Covered in Conclusions of Law. 2.-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2, and 3. 4.-6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 16, and 17, respectively. 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19 and 20, but modified. 8.-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 18, 4, 5, 6, and 8, respectively. 13.-14. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10, respectively, but modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21 through 25. Restatement of testimony; not stated as a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 10 and 14. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 through 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16, but modified. Rulings of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. Covered in Preliminary Statement. 2.-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3, 3, 15, 15, and 16, respectively. 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. 10.-11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 18 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 16.-20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 7, 11, 13 and 14, respectively, but modified. Not material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3, but modified. Not material. Copies furnished to: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred A. Ohlinger, Esquire P.O. Box 1007 Beverly Hills, FL 32665
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent Ruben S. Ares was a certified general contractor in the State of Florida holding license number CG CO 14769. Sentinel Building Company of Central Florida, Inc. was engaged in the business of building residential homes for sale. It was the practice of Sentinel Building to buy the land, engage the services of a general contractor to obtain a building permit and help in the supervision and consultation on construction and sell the hones built to others. The contractors were paid a fee of between $250 and $500 per residence for obtaining permits and providing consultation and services. The Vice-President of Sentinel Building was responsible for hiring and paying subcontractors and suppliers. Sentinel Building was not a Florida licensed general contractor, nor was it qualified by respondent or other Florida registered or certified licensee to engage in the business or contracting in Florida. Respondent Ares was not an officer, stockholder, member of the board of directors or employee of Sentinel Building Company. In 1980, respondent entered into an agreement with Sentinel Building to act as the general contractor for the con- struction of at least four residences. His responsibilities were to supervise the construction of the hones and obtain all necessary permits, including the original building permit and the final certificate of occupancy. The responsibility for engaging subcontractors and ordering and purchasing materials and supplies remained with Sentinel Building Company. Respondent was paid a fixed fee of $350 per house. During the period of time in which four residences in Seminole County were constructed, respondent held another full time job with a building company for which he worked 43 to 44 hours per week. His activity with Sentinel Building consisted of obtaining permits and periodic checks on the construction work. According to respondent, his inspections on construction activity occurred once every three to ten days and consumed approximately too to four hours of respondent's time per week. In 1980 and 1981, respondent applied for and obtained building permits for four single-family residences in Delmar Estates, Seminole County. The applications and permits listed Sentinel Building as the owner of the property and respondent Ruben S. Ares as the contractor. At least one of the four homes was under a contract of sale prior to construction. Three of the four purchasers were under the impression that the homes were built by Sentinel Building. None of the three had ever met respondent Ares, nor were they aware that he was the general contractor.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(e) and (f), Florida Statutes, that an administrative fine in the amount of $1500 be imposed against respondent and that the remaining charges of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Aldo Icardi, Esquire P.O. Box 879 990 Lewis Drive Winter Park, Florida 32790 James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observations of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its one-count Administrative Complaint filed herein on April 3, 1980, the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, alleged that the Respondent, William O'Brien, violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), due to his failure to deliver a security deposit to a property owner and that Respondent thereafter tendered a protion of the deposit in the form of a check which, when presented for payment, was not honored due to insufficient funds. During times material, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner and is the holder of Florida Real Estate License No. 168869. Gary ;Heide is the owner of the duplex apartment situated at 2407 Northeast 33rd avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The pertinent facts surrounding the allegations herein are, for the most part, simple and undisputed. The subject premises had been leased by owner Heide to Maurice L. LaReau. LaReau had leased the premises for approximately eleven (11) months when he found a residence that he intended to purchase and was therefore desirous of subletting the subject property with the owner's permission in an acceptable manner such that he would not incur any losses due to his vacating the premises prior to the expiration of the lease term. He, therefore, approached owner Heide and advised him of his intentions. According to LaReau, Heide gave him "carte blanche" authority to find a tenant to sublease the apartment but that he would appreciate it if he would "screen" the sub-lessee. Heide suggested that LaReau place an ad in the newspaper to secure a tenant and he also made known to LaReau his overall objective of not sustaining any loss of rents due to a vacancy in the apartment. During that conversation Heide also advised LaReau that he would be leaving for a vacation in Germany shortly. When LaReau leased the subject premises from Heide he entered a twelve (12) month lease and paid a $900.00 fee which included the first and last month's rent plus a security deposit. During times material, Respondent was the registered corporate broker for Exclusively Rentals and Management Company (Exclusively). Through the efforts of Respondent and Exclusively, Gregory A. Costa, III, was secured as a tenant to sublet the subject property from Maurice LaReau on or about October 8, 1977. Respondent had been approached by owner Heide to manage the subject property while Respondent was visiting an apartment complex adjacent to the Heide property on which Exclusively had the managing contract. According to the agreed terms for the subletting of the Heide property from LaReau to Costa, Costa agreed upon an occupancy date of October 15, 1977, for a total rental of $150.00 plus payment for the twelfth month rent for a fee of $300.00; a security deposit of $300.00 and a $150.00 commission to Exclusively for a total of $900.00. This amount was paid to tenant Maurice LaRaeau. Exclusively retained the agreed upon commission which represented on- half the monthly rental, or a fee of $150.00 See Respondent's Exhibit 1. Additionally, Messer. LaReau signed an agreement representing that the subletting was done with owner Heide's knowledge and was in accordance with his instructions. (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Upon returning from Germany, owner Heide became upset that LaReau had sublet the premises to Costa and contended that the subletting was only to have been done through the aid and assistance of another rental management firm know as Home Finders Real Estate Brokers. Heide contended that Audrey Lester was the only agent connected with that firm who had the authority to accept tenants or sub-lessees in his absence. Heide, therefore, contended that he was entitled to recoup from Respondent, through its corporate entity, Exclusively Rentals and Management Company, the entire $900.00 in addition to a continued retention of the $900.00 deposit which had been paid by the tenant, LaReau. Although Heide contended that he never used Exclusively to rent or otherwise secure tenants for any of his apartments, he acknowledged that he signed a new lease and accepted Costa as a tenant for the subject property. Heide's other complaint with Respondent is that a check dated November 10, 1977, in the amount of $150.00 and signed by Michael J. Cochran was not honored when presented for payment due to insufficient funds. An examination of that check does not reveal that it was returned by the bank upon which it was drawn or that it was even presented for payment as testified to by Messer. Heide (see Petitioner's Exhibit D). Respondent was approached by owner Heide to act as an agent to secure tenants for his property as vacancies occurred while Respondent was visiting an adjoining rental property through which Respondent's agency represented, the Ocean Gardens Apartment building. Heide also visited Respondent's office building prior to the subject incident (TR. 37 of the June 3, 1981, hearing). Respondent did not sustain any loss of rents due to the subletting of the subject property from LaReau to Costa through the efforts of Respondent and/or Exclusively Rentals and Management. Respondent credibly testified that there were ample monies in the account of Exclusively to pay the $150.00 check drawn by that firm to owner Heide in November of 1977, had it, in fact, been presented for payment. Respondent severed his relations with Exclusively and advised all of the associates of that severance during December of 1977. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: 1. That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of July, 1981. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1981.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Hamilton held registered residential contractors license number RR0015037. Hamilton agreed to construct a house in Clearmont, Florida, with a completion date no later than May 1, 1977, for Robert J. and Margaret M. Phlepsen. The construction price was $75,000.00. After construction of the house it was discovered that there existed two violations of the Southern Building Code. First, the "step-down" from the kitchen to the garage was an eleven inch riser contrary to the code requirement that the height of a riser shall not exceed seven and three quarters inches. The second violation occurred through the use of 2 X 8 joists where the code would require 2 X 10 joists. The extra high riser between the kitchen and the garage was apparently caused by an oversight. Hamilton merely failed to install an intermediate step at that location. The second violation occurred because the owner and Hamilton agreed to use the smaller joists in order to save money on the contract price. In neither case is there sufficient evidence to establish that Hamilton's violations were willful or deliberate as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. On June 6, 1978, the Lake County Board of Examiners suspended Hamilton's Lake County Certificate of Competency because of violations of building code requirements in the construction of Phlepsen's house.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Willie Daniels violated sections 489.129(1)(d) and (e) F.S., as alleged in the administrative complaint, by willful violation of a local building code and aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade any provision of Chapter 489. At the hearing the material facts were uncontroverted.
Findings Of Fact Willie F. Daniels is now, and was at all times relevant, licensed as a roofing contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He holds license #RC 0027954 and does business as "Daniels Roofing', a sole proprietorship. He has been doing roofing in the Orlando, Florida area since 1954. Willie Daniels first met Thomas Dahlman when Dahlman came to his house trying to sell windows. Dahlman told him that he did all kinds of work, including windows, roofing and painting. Later Dahlman called him and said he had a roofing job that he wanted Daniels to do and that he would take him out to the house. The house belonged to Chris Correa and was located at 4421 Sebastian Way, in Orlando. Dahlman bought the materials for the job and Willie Daniels provided a day and a half labor on the roof. He was paid approximately $600.00 by Dahlman. Chris Correa was initially contacted by an agent for Thomas Dahlman who was trying to sell solar heating devices. When she told him she really needed a new roof, he said his boss could arrange that. Dahlman arranged for her loan to pay for the roof and arranged for the labor to be done by Willie Daniels. Chris Correa paid Thomas Dahlman $3,000 for the roof. About three days after the roof was completed, on February 18, 1986, she signed a contract for the roof work with Dahlman Enterprises, Inc. The contract is signed Thomas Dahlman and by Ms. Correa. Willie Daniels was not a party to the contract. The City of Orlando has adopted the Standard Building Code, including the following provision relating to permit applications: Section 105 - Application for Permit - When Required Any owner, authorized agent, or contractor who desires to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, ... or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the Building Official and obtain the required permit therefor. * * * No permit was applied for or obtained for the roofing job on Chris Correa's house. Willie Daniels assumed Thomas Dahlman was a licensed contractor because Dahlman told him he was in the business of doing roofing, painting, installing windows and similar work. He did not ask Dahlman if he was licensed. Dalhman was, in fact, not a licensed contractor.
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's license as a registered residential contractor should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the two Administrative Complaints filed in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint filed herein, Respondent was a registered residential contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RR 0010134. Michael P. Freeman (a/k/a Dennis Freeman) was at no time material to the allegations considered herein a registered, certified, or otherwise licensed individual on record with CILB in Florida. In July 1983, Respondent and Dennis Freeman agreed to form a corporation for the purpose of home construction in Florida to be known as D & S Homebuilders, Inc. (D & S). The officers of this corporation were to be: President S. A. Stone (Respondent) Vice President Dennis Freeman Sec. Treas. Kristina Freeman The letter from Respondent to his attorney, drafted and written by Ms. Via, but signed by Respondent, requesting that the corporation be established, provided that Freeman was to be responsible for all materials, maintenance, labor, bills, etc., and Respondent was to be responsible only for the "quality of work." This letter served as an agreement between Freeman and Stone which was to be separate and apart from the Articles of Incorporation. Respondent was to receive a 7% commission on "all labor done or any type of construction by Mr. Freeman or D & S Homebuilders . . .", and through his Exchange Realty office, was to receive a 5% commission on all sales of property from the corporation or Mr. Freeman. D & S was organized as a corporation until November 21, 1984, when it was involuntarily dissolved for failure to file an annual report. Though the corporation was formed and a Corporate Charter issued, and this action was taken at the request of the Respondent, the corporation was formed in the attorney's name. Neither Respondent nor the Freemans ever officially took over as officers or directors. In short, the corporation while legally born, never breathed. At no time during its life and during the period relative to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint herein, did the Respondent qualify the corporation with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. In addition to sending the letter to the attorney requesting that the corporation be established, Mr. Stone, on November 1, 1983, entered into a handwritten agreement with Mr. Freeman, also drawn by Ms. Via, which called for the use of his license: for Freeman to pay Respondent an additional $500.00 for the use of the license on each job over $5,0000.00 and for Freeman to "be solely responsible for anything that might arise against S. A. Stone's license." The first payment was to be made on December 1, 1983, and the agreement was to last through November 1, 1984. Stone never got any financial benefit from his relationship with Freeman. The agreement mentioned above was entered into at the behest of the then Chief of Police in Chiefland, Mr. Underwood, who requested that Respondent do anything he could to keep Freeman, who was then under investigation for other misconduct in the area. Mr. Underwood corroborates this. Pursuant to this request, when Respondent suggested an arrangement with Freeman, Freeman insisted that the agreement be in writing. Stone contends that at no time did he ever intend for the agreement to be permanent nor did he ever intend to make any money out of it. He says he knew it was illegal and he entered it solely because of the request from the police. He contends, and there is no evidence to contradict his contention, that at no time did he ever receive any money from Freeman as a result of this agreement nor from the formation of D & S. On July 26, 1983, Respondent executed an authorization for Dennis Freeman to act as his authorized agent to pull permits on his behalf at the Levy County Building Department. No mention was made on this form of D & S Homebuilders, Inc. The form was prepared by Mrs. Nancy Gilbert, the administrative assistant to Mr. Davis, the Levy County Building Official. At the time in question, Mr. Stone had introduced Mr. Freeman, his agent, to pull permits and Ms. Gilbert prepared the document to do what Mr. Stone wanted. The document is written in plural terms for repeated uses. Mr. Stone contends that his intention at the time was for it to be used for a single operation and that he failed to notice the erroneous pluralism, but other evidence of record disproves this contention. While it is not the policy of the Building Office to prepare these authorizations for contractors, it is a normal practice in Levy County and other counties throughout the State to allow agents to pull permits on the license of their prime contractor or employer as was done here. There is no evidence that the Bell job, which was for the most part accomplished by Respondent, was not satisfactory. Here, the work progressed smoothly and was properly completed, but based on his dissatisfaction with Freeman's performance during this job, he indicated to Freeman that there would be no further relationship between them. Nonetheless, the authorization was not revoked and Stone signed the permit application for the Reagan house as seen below. Without that authorization, the Building Office would not have allowed Freeman to obtain any of the building permits utilized for the other construction projects referenced in the Administrative Complaint. In July 1983, the Fumeas entered into a handwritten contract with Freeman, drafted by Kristina Freeman for the construction of a house for Bertha Reagan, Mrs. Fumea's mother. The contract had a price of $24,000.00. The Fumeas were to receive $10,000.00 for their land on which the house was to be built and Freeman was to receive a $14,000.00 loan from Mrs. Reagan for materials to build the house in question. When the house was sold, the initial $24,000.00 was to be returned to Mrs. Reagan. Any profit was to be divided 40% to Mrs. Reagan, 40% to the Freemans, and 20% to the Fumeas. The contract also called for the construction of a second house upon completion of the first. By check, dated June 9, 1983, Mrs. Reagan provided Freeman with the $14,000.00 to be secured by a second mortgage on the property executed by both Freemans in favor of Bertha Reagan. Thereafter, on August 24, 1983, Respondent, acting for D & S and S. A. Stone and Dennis Freeman, applied for a construction permit to build a residence for Mrs. Reagan as called for. In support of that application, Mr. Stone also furnished an affidavit to the effect that he was the qualifying contractor for residential building for D & S in Levy County. That same day, a building permit was issued to D & S, S. A. Stone, and Dennis Freeman for construction of the house in question. Somewhat later, in August or September, 1983, Freeman began construction of the house. During their negotiations, Freeman had indicated that Respondent was his associate. Nonetheless, it was Freeman who did all the work but in September or October 1983, he quit work on the project. At that point the foundation, the floor, and the 2 x 4 framing was in. No roof, no plumbing, and no electrical work had been installed. Mr. Fumea kept calling Freeman who repeatedly promised to finish work on the property by December 1983, but never did. The house was finally completed by another builder, David Allen, in 1984, for $21,000.00 additional. Allen was unable to complete the work started by Freeman and had to tear it down. Only the original footing was utilized. Neither Mr. or Mrs. Fumea ever dealt with or saw Stone, nor at any time during the period of difficulty with the construction was any attempt made to contact him. The reasoning was that even though Freeman had indicated Stone was the "S" in D & S before the work started, they did not believe Stone had anything to do with the contract. The Fumea's knowledge of Respondent's relationship with D & S was based solely on Freeman's representations. They never dealt with Stone, never saw him at the job, nor did they complain to him when the work was not completed even though Chiefland is a small town and it would be easy to contact him. Somewhat later, on September 7, 1983, Michael (Dennis) and Kristina Freeman entered into a contract with Herman R. and Verenia A. Matthews for the construction of a home in Levy County for a contract price of approximately $21,061.45 which included $17,061.45 which was then owed to the Matthews by Freeman. Freeman was to build them a house on a lot they owned across from their residence for an investment. The $17,641.00 was made up of several loans by the Matthews to Freeman. At this time, the Matthews did not know of D & S. The loans in question had been granted on the basis of a personal friendship between the Matthews and Freeman. At the time, the Matthews were in Michigan and the loans were not secured nor was interest involved. In addition to the $17,061.45 already advanced, the Matthews were to pay an additional $4,000.00 and any sums received from the cutting of timber on the property was to also be paid to Freeman. On or about October 12, 1983, Michael Freeman, acting for D & S, applied for a construction permit to build the Matthews' house. Attached to the application was an undated, unnotarized affidavit signed by Michael Freeman indicating he was qualifying contractor for D & S. Pursuant to the application, that same day, a building permit for the construction in question, was issued. Actually, construction had started without the benefit of a permit in early September, 1983. On September 9, 1983, the Matthews gave Freeman a $1,000.00 check with second and third payments of $1,000.00 each being paid on September 22, 1983. On October 17, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave Freeman a check for $7,000.00 of which $1,000.00 was the remaining amount due on the $4,000.00 balance and $6,000.00 was an unsecured loan. This loan was repaid immediately with an exchange check, post-dated to October 24, 1983, in the amount of $6,000.00 drawn on the account of D & S by Michael Freeman. When the Matthews ultimately deposited the check, however, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds and the $6,000.00 loan was never repaid. The Matthews first found out about D & S Homebuilders, Inc. when the Freemans in late August or September, 1983, indicated they had incorporated. Mrs. Matthews had never met the Respondent nor been aware that Respondent might be involved in the construction. Freeman had represented himself as a licensed contractor and had told the Matthews that he had rented space in Respondent's office. At no time, however, did he say that Respondent was involved in the business. On November 14, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave a check in the amount of $7,000.00 to Kristina Freeman, as a loan to D & S since she had been told that the company was haying trouble paying its bills. This loan was never repaid. By this time, the Matthews knew well that Freeman was in financial difficulties and did not have any money, so they did not ask for their loan back. In addition, on December 2, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave Michael Freeman a check for $850.00 as a loan for payroll and on December 12, 1983, gave him a check for an additional $200.00 as a loan to assist him to buy property on which he was to build a house for Mr. Piperski. Neither of these latter two loans were ever repaid. The house to be built for the Matthews was never completed by Freeman or D & S. Work stopped sometime in November 1983. After Freeman went to jail in January 1984, Mrs. Matthews had it finished by someone else. The home was completed by this second contractor in April 1984 and the Matthews now live in it. In addition to the amounts set out above, the Matthews also paid an additional $7,034.00 for materials and $6,590.00 for labor to complete the property. On top of this, they also paid $1,200.00 to RocLen Refrigeration for a dishonored check issued by Kris Freeman on the D & S account in January 1984 for the heating and air conditioning system. They also paid off a claim of lien in the amount of approximately $3,600.00 filed by McCoy Building Supply Center for building materials ordered by D & S for the property; approximately $240.00 to Arrington Tru-Value Hardware for miscellaneous building materials ordered by D & S for the property; and approximately $875.00 to satisfy a claim of lien filed by Keller Building Products of Ocala, based on a contract with D & S for miscellaneous building materials on the property. Mrs. Matthews did not contact Respondent about the house because as far as she was concerned, he had nothing to do with it. Freeman had told her that D & S was owned by Freeman and his wife, most of the checks she gave to D & S were made out to Freeman and endorsed by either Freeman or his wife. All cash paid into the D & S account was done through dealings with one or the other of the Freemans, and she never dealt at all with Stone. On November 25, 1983, Michael Freeman, acting for D & S, submitted a proposal to Charles Treis for the construction of a home on property in Chiefland, Florida, for a price of $14,000.00 plus a travel trailer valued at $3,000.00. On the same day, Freeman and Treis entered a standard form agreement for the construction of this home by D & S for the amount stated, payments to be made of $5,000.00 as of signing $5,000.00 upon "rough in," and $4,000.00 plus the travel trailer upon completion of specified work. Construction was to begin on November 28, 1983, and was to be completed within 60 days. The contractor was to complete the house except for painting and staining, heating and air conditioning, floor covering, and appliances. Interior trim and doors were to be supplied by the contractor for, installation by the owner. That same day, Mr. Treis gave a check in the amount of $5,000.00 to Michael Freeman as the first payment on account in accordance with the terms of the contract. This contract was amended on January 10, 1984 when Freeman agreed to install floor covering, build cabinets for the kitchen, install interior trim and doors, and paint and stain. the interior and exterior. He was also to supply wood ceiling in the living room area and kitchen and in return therefor, was to be paid $2,000.00 plus a travel trailer. On December 20, 1983, Michael Freeman, on behalf of D & S, applied for a construction permit to build the Treis house and that same day a building permit was issued to D & S. On January 6, 1984, Mr. Treis gave two checks to Mr. Freeman, one for $1,000.00 and one for $6,000.00 additional draws against the contract price. In mid-January 1984, after the foundation was poured and the interior and exterior walls were partially erected, D & S ceased all construction activity because Freeman had been arrested and jailed in Marion County. At this point, the roof had not been installed nor were doors and windows in place. No one from D & S ever returned to complete his own construction. On January 16, 1984, Mr. Treis paid Suwannee Valley Precast Company in the amount of $540.00 for a 900 gallon septic tank ordered by Mike Freeman at D & S. This bill was supposed to have been paid out of the first draw Treis gave Freeman but was not. To avoid a lien being filed against his property, Mr. Treis paid off the amount in question. Mr. Treis also paid $710.33 to Sunshine Concrete and Building Supply for materials ordered by D & S and $189.00 to Lindsey Brothers Construction for labor for laying the foundation walls, also procured by Freeman for D & S. In addition, Mr. Treis paid Harcan Lumber the amount of $4,500.00 for bad checks that Michael Freeman had written in payment for materials to go into the Treis property. As a result of all these additional debts, Mr. Treis was required to sell the property to pay off the creditors not paid by D & S. Mr. Stone was not present at any time during the transactions described regarding Mr. Treis, and Freeman made no mention of him. In fact, Mr. Treis did not know anything about Mr. Stone. It was only after Mr. Treis found out that Freeman was in jail that he had any contact with Stone. Toward the end of January 1984, when he found out that the "S" in D & S was Respondent, Treis and a friend went to Stone's office to find out what Stone intended to do about the property. Stone indicated he was not responsible for anything that Freeman did and that he would not honor the contract that had been entered into with D & S. At some time prior to November 26, 1983, in response to an advertisement placed in the Chiefland newspaper by D & S, Howard Robinson contacted Freeman to obtain an estimate for the construction of a home in Levy County. During the contract negotiations, Freeman provided Robinson with a D & S business card which bears only Freeman's name. Robinson is a resident of Largo but owns property in Levy County. On November 26, 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Robinson, entered into a contract with D & S which was signed by Michael Freeman, for the construction of a home for the price of $16,900.00. Payments were to be made one-third upon acceptance of the contract, one-third upon "rough-in" inspection, and one a third upon completion. The owner was to install floor coverings, heating and air-conditioning and appliances, and the contractor was to provide a one year warranty on construction. Construction was to begin by November 29 and the house was to be completed within 60 days. Three days later on November 29, 1983, Mrs. Robinson issued a check in the amount of $5,633.33 to D & S Homebuilders, Inc. as the first payment for the construction of their home. This check was endorsed by Michael Freeman for D & S. It should be noted here that, as previously, the business card given to Mr. Robinson by Freeman at the time of their first meeting reflects only Freeman's name, not that of Respondent. After the contract was executed, Mr. Robinson returned to Largo and did not come back to Levy County until January 1984. On December 22, 1983, Mr. Freeman came to Largo to see the Robinsons for purpose of securing the second draw. At that time, he indicated the foundation and slab had been poured and that walls erected and the roof trusses were to be installed the following day. Based on these representations, Mrs. Robinson issued another check for $5,633.33 to Freeman for the second draw under the contract even though the second draw was not due until after erection of the roof trusses. As inducement to pay prior to the time called for in the contract, Freeman agreed to amend the contract to provide air conditioning and heating, furnish the floor covering, and build a 10 x 12 foot pump house. After paying these additional sums, Mr. Robinson found out that construction on his house had not been started even though Freeman had indicated that it had. Therefore, in January 1984, Mr. Robinson made his first trip back to Chiefland since the signing of the contract to visit the construction site and discovered that the only work accomplished had been the digging of a footer. On or about January 10, 1984, Freeman, on behalf of D & S, applied for a building permit to construct the property in question and this permit was issued that same day. The only construction accomplished on Robinson's property was an oversized footer, approximately three feet wide and four or five feet deep, out of which the steel company had already taken the steel originally installed. Even after this however, Mr. Robinson did not contact Respondent because his dealings had always been with Freeman and he had never seen nor talked to Stone. Neither Stone or any of his agents or employees has ever contacted Mr. Robinson concerning either completing the construction or repaying the money paid under the contract. The only thing Mr. Robinson has ever been reimbursed with was a $300.00 payment from the County when Mr. Freeman was on a work- release program while in jail. In November 1983, Mitchell Piperski saw an ad in the paper for a home built by Mr. Freeman. This ad was in the name of D & S Builders and Mr. Piperski contacted Freeman at the phone number in the ad. Freeman thereafter came to Piperski's house and they discussed the possible construction of a home for the Piperskis. As a result of these discussions, Mr. Piperski, on December 19, 1983, entered into a contract with D & S signed by Michael and Kris Freeman for the construction of a home in Chiefland for a contract price of $16,500.00. Since Mr. Piperski did not have a lot on which to build the house, Freeman took him a see a lot which he said he, Freeman, owned. The lot in question was a five acre corner and when Piperski said he did not need so much land, Freeman said he would keep one half. Since, however, the two parties could not agree on the property, Piperski purchased a lot from someone else. A short time thereafter, the Freemans came to the Piperskis and indicated they would be in financial difficulty if the Piperskis did not buy their property and as a result, the Piperskis agreed to allow Freeman to build the house on the property which, by warranty deed on December 19, 1983, Freeman conveyed to the Piperskis. At closing Freeman was paid $5,000.00 called for upon acceptance of the contract, and $12,500.00 for the lot. During the negotiations, Freeman had told Mr. Piperski that there were three people involved in D & S. These three were Freeman, his wife, Kris, and someone else, undisclosed, who was in the real estate business. Mr. Piperski had known Stone from the lodge to which they both belonged but he had no idea that Stone was the "S" in D & S. No work on the construction of the Piperski house was ever accomplished. When Piperski called the building department, he was told that Freeman could no longer build homes because Mr. Stone had pulled the authorization for him to use Stone's license. This disclosure was made to Mr. Piperski on January 8, 1984. Prior to that date and all through the negotiations, he had no idea that Stone was involved in the transaction. That afternoon, Mr. Piperski went to a lawyer about the situation and the lawyer called Stone. When Piperski asked Stone for his $5,000.00 back, Mr. Stone said he would allow Freeman to use his license to complete the house. Notwithstanding this promise by Stone, Freeman never made any effort to secure a permit to begin construction. Mr; Piperski did not contact Stone again after that one instance because he felt Stone knew what the situation was and what had to be done. Stone, on the other hand, did not contact Piperski either, nor did Freeman, and at no time was Piperski reimbursed the $5,000.00 deposit he made under the terms of the contract. On January 9, 1984, Stone wrote to Mr. A1 Simmons, the attorney who formed the corporation known as D & S Homebuilders, Inc. In this letter Stone recalled that Simmons had formed the corporation in which Freeman was President, his wife was Secretary/Treasurer, and he, Respondent, was Vice-President. Stone also cited that there was a communications gap between Freeman and himself and as a result, asked how he could be removed as an officer of the corporation. Stone indicated that he was "going to notify the County that I am no longer going to authorize the use of my license as D & S Homes." At the bottom of the letter, he states that it constitutes official notification to Freeman and to Mr. Davis, the building official, that his license is no longer to be used under D & S Homes. By this letter, Mr. Stone recognized that as of January 9, 1984, he was still a part of D & S Homes and was aware of the use of his license by D & S under the authorization given earlier in the year. It has already been found that in November 1983, Stone and Freeman entered into an agreement for Freeman to pay Stone for the use of his license by D & S Homes. It is also noted, however, that on January 5, 1984, approximately two months later, Mr. Stone wrote to Freeman indicating his dissatisfaction with the way Freeman was managing the company and because of Freeman's failure to communicate with Stone in response to inquiry. In this letter, he makes it very clear to Freeman that if Freeman does not keep in touch, he will terminate the relationship that he has with D & S. By so doing, Stone puts to rest any question that he was still a part of D & S and agreed to Freeman's using his license for construction by that firm as late as January 5, 1984 - well after the contracts described above were entered into by Freeman. D & S had a checking account with the Bank of Florida in Chiefland on which both Respondent and Freeman were authorized to write checks. In October 1983, Mr. Freeman drafted a check to Exchange Realty, which is owned by Respondent, in the amount of $500.00 which bears the notion, "commission on burnout." This check was deposited to the account of Exchange Realty. The handwriting on the endorsement appears to be that of Penny Via as does the name of the payee. On October 24, 1983, Mr. Stone wrote a check, apparently on a counter check payable to Exchange Realty in the amount of $500.00. Again, this check is endorsed for deposit to the account of Exchange Realty and not only the endorsement but also the check itself, with the exception of the signature, appears to be drawn in the handwriting of Ms. Via. While offered to show Respondent's receipt of benefit from his association with D & S, this evidence does not do so. Respondent knew of this account, nonetheless, and agreed to be a signatory on it so that he could work on the account when Freeman was out of town. After a short period, however, he took his name off the account though he cannot remember when that was. Respondent's contention that he had little if any connection with the actual construction work accomplished by Freeman under the D & S banner is supported by the testimony of Earl Jones, a plumber, who did the plumbing work on some of the houses constructed by Freeman during the Summer of 1983. Jones was hired by Freeman who, at the time, advised him that he was a general contractor and owned the business. Freeman admitted that he was a friend of the Respondent but during the whole period of his association with D & S, Jones never dealt with Stone and he feels that his employer was Freeman, not Stone. During the period of their association, Jones had no contact at all with Respondent. All bills for services rendered were sent directly to Freeman. Andrew Sension, an electrical contractor, met Freeman when Freeman solicited bids for the drawing of house plans. Thereafter, Sension drew five house plans for Freeman through D & S and also did some electrical work. At that time, Freeman indicated that he and his wife owned D & S and throughout their relationship, Sension assumed that Freeman was licensed. He has, however, worked for Respondent but never any project where Freeman and Respondent were involved together. To his knowledge, Respondent had a good reputation in the County as a contractor. Respondent has lived in Chiefland for approximately 15 years and is licensed as a contractor in both Florida and Virginia where he operated as a general contractor for 10 or 11 years before coming to Florida. In addition, he worked as a contractor in Ft. Lauderdale for 5 or 6 years and in all his construction history, never had any disciplinary action taken against him. Stone met Freeman some time in the middle of 1983 when Freeman came to his real estate office to buy a lot to build on. Later on, Freeman came back and said his brother an attorney, had suggested he contact Stone to form a corporation to build homes. At the time, Freeman, whose real name was Michael, was using the name Dennis Freeman, actually the name of his brother. When Stone checked Freeman's reputation out with the credit bureau, he checked the name, Dennis Freeman, and found that there was no adverse comments recorded. He did not know at the time that he was checking the record of a different individual. Nonetheless, satisfied with the results of his inquiry, and willing to go into the proposition suggested by Freeman, the parties made an appointment with attorney Simmons to form a corporation. Stone contends, and Simmons concurs, that though the corporation was formed, it never became operative because while formed in the name of Simmons for incorporation purposes, the transfer of authority to the true officers, Stone, Freeman, and Freeman's wife, was never accomplished. Were this all there were to it, there would be little difficulty in accepting Stone's exculpatory rationale. The fact remains, however, that his conduct and communications with his attorney in January 1984, several months after the corporation was formed, clearly reveals that though the official transfer of names never took place, he was well aware that D & S was active, that Freeman was building homes under the D & S banner, and that Freeman was using his, Stone's license, to do so with Stone's permission. The letter of January 9, 1984, to the lawyer clearly defeats Stone's contention that he felt the authorization for Freeman to pull permits was a one time proposition. If that were the case, he would not have indicated in these later communications that he was aware of what was going on and wished it stopped as of that time. There is no doubt that Respondent never met Mrs. Reagan, the Fumeas, the Matthews, the Robinsons, Mr. Treis, or the Piperskis in the capacity of a contractor. None of the people ever indicated that they dealt with Stone. Respondent admits that his contractor's license was withdrawn by the County but contends that this action was taken at a meeting to which he was not invited and did not attend. He did pot know of the action taken, he claims, until he read it in the newspaper. There is no evidence to contradict this. He firmly believes that his problem with the County is the direct result of the fact that he failed to contribute Mr. Davis' church when asked-to do so at the time he executed the general authorization for Freeman to use his license. Whether Mr. Davis is the complainant and the cause of the disciplinary action being taken here is immaterial however, and in any case, there is no evidence to support Respondent's contention. As for Freeman, on January 30, 1984, he entered a guilty plea to one count of a third degree felony by failing to redeliver and one count of a third degree felony by forgery and committing grand theft. Thereafter, he was found guilty of the charges and placed on probation for two years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 85-1468 be dismissed. It is further recommended that based on the violations established in DOAH Case No. 85-0690, Respondent's license as a registered general contractor be suspended for six months and that thereafter Respondent be placed on probation for a period of three years. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 16th day of January, 1986. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED W. Douglas Beason, Esquire 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jeffrey J. Fitos, Esquire 1 East Silver Springs Blvd. Ocala, Florida 32670 James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2, Jacksonville, Florida Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by parties to this case. RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S SUBMISSION 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. 2 · Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Sentence 1 through 3 are irrelevant. Sentence 4 is accepted as to it relates to the letter being prepared by the building department but rejected as to this being done at Respondent's request. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 1O. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12, except for the first sentence which is irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12, except for the last sentence which implied Freeman signed as affiant when in fact he signed as a witness. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Sentence 1 rejected as contra to the evidence. Sentence 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as irrelevant and misleading. There is no indication in the record that Respondent knew of this contract or that any demand for reimbursement was made upon him. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 and 22, except for sentences 3 & 4, which are rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and inaccurate. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35, except that November 6 in the proposal should be November 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34 and 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Accepted but not adopted as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Adopted n Finding of Fact 45 and 46, except that it was the building office that advised Piperski that Freeman did not have a permit, not Respondent. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Sentence 1 through 3 adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Sentence 4 rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentence 5 and 6 adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Sentences 3 through 5 rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Findings of Fact 26- 29. Sentence 3 rejected as not being a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Sentence 1 rejected as contra to the evidence. Mrs. Reagan did not sign the contract. Mrs. Fumea did. Sentence 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Sentence 3 adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Sentence 4 adopted in general. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 17, 35 and 41. Sentence 3 rejected by contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentence 4 is rejected as irrelevant. Sentence 5 is ejected as contra to the weight of the evidence in that he failed to show the proper concern for the use of his licenses. Rejected as irrelevant to the issues herein. 8 and 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. Adopted as a general fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61. Adopted in Findings of Fact 52-55.
